2 ms·
> Every single one of them I saw so far has the same bad faith attacks, claiming that that guy's mental health would be compromised… That's because the substan
by ceejayoz 12d ago
> Every single one of them I saw so far has the same bad faith attacks, claiming that that guy's mental health would be compromised…
That's because the substantive discussion happened in 2024 when this whole mess started. He was commenting here - which resulted in screenshots showing up in federal court filings - in deeply unwise fashion.
It's just sad now.
- hypfer 12d agoDo you still happen to have any links there? Or pointers of phrases or similar. This would check out indeed for me, as it would invoke the same responses as an astroturfing campaign in normal people, as the whole "social cohesion" stuff would pull them towards trying to shut stuff down and re-establish coherent reality. By any means necessary and as they see fit. So that's a hypothesis that would satisfy the data given.
- ceejayoz 12d agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=photomatt https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=photomatt Page 24, for example: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.437474/gov.uscourts.cand.437474.64.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
- hypfer 12d agoThanks! I see what you mean with "unwise", though, I would not say that it would validate the bad faith attacks I'm seeing. After all, all he did there is show his hand, which (possibly) hurt him in court. I suppose the takeaway there is that page 24 proves that his intent was to do harm, and that's why there's this counter-reaction by people that feel harmed, but that still makes stuff exactly as bad faith as it smells. But we do not need to discuss this further (unless you have further thoughts), as stuff now makes sense to me. So thanks again!