3 ms·
This doesnt make sense… ? Clearly all significant names involved with Wikipedia, including admins, have some kind of ulterior motives, to some degree above lit
by MichaelZuo 4mo ago
This doesnt make sense… ?
Clearly all significant names involved with Wikipedia, including admins, have some kind of ulterior motives, to some degree above literally zero.
Unless you believe in literally perfect altruism 100% of the time.
The degree can vary from one to another, but that seems like a much higher bar to confidently pin down.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo agoYou aren't allowed to build a live feed of wikipedia administrative actions that run counter to your political biases, so that you can coordinate a brigade of people who share your political biases.
- MichaelZuo 4mo agoDid you reply to the correct comment? This doesnt seem to address my comment?
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo agoCan you clarify how your comment addressed the one it replied to? Yours was a bit non-sequitur, so perhaps I misinterpreted the implication.
- MichaelZuo 4mo agoCan you not see the last sentence? It’s literally directly addressing the last sentence of the parent: “So he claimed to be doing one thing, but in reality it was more of a thinly disguised power play by the look of it.”
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo agoYeah, but that seems to ignore GP's whole post save for the last paragraph. The community discussion was around what he actually did wrong (which my post mentioned 1 example of). The bad ulterior motives may help explain the bad behavior, but the behavior is bad in and of itself. That's why I thought there was a misunderstanding when your post totally ignored the behavior.
- MichaelZuo 4mo agoThis makes no sense. How can you know that is not part of the “whole point”? Presumably the sentence was included for some reason, not just pure random keyboard bashing. Unless you are the GP?
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo agoAre you interested in discussing the actual behavior this person engaged in, which is the subject of both the article and this thread?
- MichaelZuo 4mo agoAre you confused? You replied to me initially, I didn’t seek out one of your comments to reply to. And you still haven’t explained why you answered a comment believed to be a non-sequitor… with your own non-sequitor. Which still makes no sense. If you don’t want to answer any of the questions so far, you are free to leave.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo agook, so: no consider that the reason you think my post was a non-sequitur to yours, may be because mine was discussing the topic of the thread you sought out and responded to with a non-sequitur thus, you are confused by both my post and GP ("This doesnt make sense… ?"), because you're ignoring the substance of their comment and the allegations
- MichaelZuo 4mo agoThis just reads like gibberish. You’ve written multiple nonsensical replies in a row, so I’m not going to bother puzzling it out anymore.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago> This doesnt make sense… ? > This doesnt seem to address... > This makes no sense. > you still haven’t explained... > still makes no sense. > This just reads like gibberish > multiple nonsensical replies It is unfortunate that you're so confused by what everybody else in this thread is saying. It is totally normal, however, that so many things don't make sense to a confused person. On the plus side, nobody else seems to be confused by any of the other comments in this thread.
- m0d0nne11 3mo agoThe notion that altruism exists - not to mention "literally perfect altruism" - is harmful. And yes, of course - a person can decide to do something that benefits others without apparent benefit to themselves.... until you realize that the decision itself is an inherently "selfish" act as it is based on something that has value to that person. This may seem like nit-picking until you realize how many vile schemes involve preying upon people after convincing them that they are insufficiently "altruistic".