4 ms·

No one can pass silly purity tests. There are people who unironically believe that if you believe in money you are a bad person and are oppressing them. Just l

No one can pass silly purity tests. There are people who unironically believe that if you believe in money you are a bad person and are oppressing them. Just like it would be silly for someone to blame you for being on this website founded by someone who has some questionable views, if you go looking. Or, for using this very much American website, an America that's becoming increasingly hostile. Is your participation here an implicit agreement with the current administration? Perhaps not before, but now that you've read this comment one could argue your continued participation makes you complicit. You show me someone's views and associations and I can make them a devil.

wat10000 2y ago
Thinking that you should treat people well regardless of which genitals they prefer is not a “silly purity test,” it’s basic decency, at least in this millennium.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wat10000 2y ago
    Trying to get laws passed and posting pseudonymous comments on a web site are not equivalent activities.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wat10000 2y ago
        And the moment I contribute to DOGE is the moment you'll have a point here.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        You are helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it. It's funny how you are immediately trying to disassociate yourself from the simple fact that you -> hacker news -> pg -> musk. There are people who don't use Twitter for the simple reason that Musk owns it. You can do the same with HN, no?
        wat10000 2y ago
        So first of all, no I'm not. And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing. I have never made this claim. And yes, Hacker News is literally a marketing site for Y Combinator, of which pg has a stake. In any case I've already ascertained your level of conviction so we can let it go. At least redditors had enough to leave reddit over simple API changes.
        wat10000 2y ago
        You're telling me that I'm inconsistent in my views because I think Eich deserves blame for what happened when he helped enact a bad law, but I don't stop posting to HN. That implies these two activities are comparable. If you never made that claim then what the hell is the point of your comments? You're just making shit up and holding me to a standard I never expressed. It's completely pointless and stupid.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        You said: "Thinking that you should treat people well..." I am saying that this site's cofounder is sympathetic to DOGE, which is not treating people well. Either you disagree with that view, in which case you should stop supporting this site with your participation, or you agree, and you can continue to post. Of course you can make whatever excuse you'd like to explain how just because you're here doesn't mean you're aligned with pg.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ForHackernews 2y ago
Honestly, one man's "silly purity test" is another's non-negotiable moral principle. Would you work for someone who publicly endorsed racism, cannibalism, slavery, <insert your personal red-line here>? IMHO the issue is the collapse of any broadly-shared moral and ethical framework. I don't know how you resolve that, except perhaps by trying to peacefully partition society.
- gessha 2y ago
  I’ve heard this before and I keep hearing it. Maybe I don’t understand it fully but I just can’t see how what we have now is different from the days of old. Do you have any material about the collapse of the shared moral and ethical framework?
  - wat10000 2y ago
    It's definitely true for certain things. To consider a relevant example, it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was broadly considered to be immoral. Now there's strong disagreement over this. Of course, for this particular example this is actually a good thing. It would be even better if there was broad agreement that homosexuality wasn't immoral, but having a substantial number of people on that side is better than having almost none. I think the other comment misattributes the problem. The problem isn't the loss of the old broadly shared morality, the problem is that we haven't yet managed to coalesce around a new and better one.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wat10000 2y ago
        "Leaking"? My bias against homophobes and for treating people the same regardless of sexual preference is being loudly advertised, it's not "leaking." Yeah, no shit that plenty of countries have horrible views here. Why are you acting like you think I'm unaware of this?

wat10000 2y ago

Thinking that you should treat people well regardless of which genitals they prefer is not a “silly purity test,” it’s basic decency, at least in this millennium.

amazingamazing 2y ago
[flagged]
- wat10000 2y ago
  Trying to get laws passed and posting pseudonymous comments on a web site are not equivalent activities.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - wat10000 2y ago
      And the moment I contribute to DOGE is the moment you'll have a point here.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
        You are helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it. It's funny how you are immediately trying to disassociate yourself from the simple fact that you -> hacker news -> pg -> musk. There are people who don't use Twitter for the simple reason that Musk owns it. You can do the same with HN, no?
        wat10000 2y ago
        So first of all, no I'm not. And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        > And second of all, "helping enrich someone who is sympathetic towards it" and "helping to get a law passed" are not the same thing. I have never made this claim. And yes, Hacker News is literally a marketing site for Y Combinator, of which pg has a stake. In any case I've already ascertained your level of conviction so we can let it go. At least redditors had enough to leave reddit over simple API changes.
        wat10000 2y ago
        You're telling me that I'm inconsistent in my views because I think Eich deserves blame for what happened when he helped enact a bad law, but I don't stop posting to HN. That implies these two activities are comparable. If you never made that claim then what the hell is the point of your comments? You're just making shit up and holding me to a standard I never expressed. It's completely pointless and stupid.
        amazingamazing 2y ago
        You said: "Thinking that you should treat people well..." I am saying that this site's cofounder is sympathetic to DOGE, which is not treating people well. Either you disagree with that view, in which case you should stop supporting this site with your participation, or you agree, and you can continue to post. Of course you can make whatever excuse you'd like to explain how just because you're here doesn't mean you're aligned with pg.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ForHackernews 2y ago

Honestly, one man's "silly purity test" is another's non-negotiable moral principle. Would you work for someone who publicly endorsed racism, cannibalism, slavery, <insert your personal red-line here>? IMHO the issue is the collapse of any broadly-shared moral and ethical framework. I don't know how you resolve that, except perhaps by trying to peacefully partition society.

gessha 2y ago
I’ve heard this before and I keep hearing it. Maybe I don’t understand it fully but I just can’t see how what we have now is different from the days of old. Do you have any material about the collapse of the shared moral and ethical framework?
- wat10000 2y ago
  It's definitely true for certain things. To consider a relevant example, it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was broadly considered to be immoral. Now there's strong disagreement over this. Of course, for this particular example this is actually a good thing. It would be even better if there was broad agreement that homosexuality wasn't immoral, but having a substantial number of people on that side is better than having almost none. I think the other comment misattributes the problem. The problem isn't the loss of the old broadly shared morality, the problem is that we haven't yet managed to coalesce around a new and better one.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - wat10000 2y ago
      "Leaking"? My bias against homophobes and for treating people the same regardless of sexual preference is being loudly advertised, it's not "leaking." Yeah, no shit that plenty of countries have horrible views here. Why are you acting like you think I'm unaware of this?