6 ms·

I'm not sure why it's cowardly to suggest that. Could you elaborate? I thought it was good advice. If inflammatory comments are even possibly leading to deat

I'm not sure why it's cowardly to suggest that. Could you elaborate? I thought it was good advice. If inflammatory comments are even possibly leading to death threats (and it seemed to me like they might be), it's probably a good idea to not post inflammatory comments. I mean, surely nobody wants to receive death threats. Are you saying that his/her comments are not inflammatory? My standard for cowardly posting is verbal abuse and death threats, but YMMV.

mercurial 14y ago
These comments support somebody I absolutely disagree with, but two rights don't make a wrong. Just like it might not be a good idea to say something offensive to somebody else, does not mean you deserve death threats for it. It should be OK to express your support for unpopular ideas on HN, like saying Adria Richards was right or that the people prosecuting Aaron Schwartz did the right thing. On the other hand, people sending threats... To quote the original poster, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." You disagree with stuff? Fine. Downvote and move on, or reply to it and explain why. Don't play anonymous coward.
jasonlotito 14y ago
> If inflammatory comments are even possibly leading to death threats (and it seemed to me like they might be), it's probably a good idea to not post inflammatory comments. That's 'victim blaming' and fairly inflammatory. That's not your intent. It's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped (And before people suggest it, I'm not equating rape to anything here). Basically, your intent is sound (how not to receive death threats), but your approach is insulting. The result is, the persons you are talking to are more likely to dismiss what you say because, in effect, you are blaming them for the death threats. You seem to actually care about helping. I wish I could offer some direct advice about how to approach this different, but I can't think of any at the moment. I just know that this approach is confrontational, and completely in the opposite direction of which you seem to want to go.
- Confusion 14y ago
  It's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped Telling women that not wearing provocative clothing will lower their chance of being raped is simply stating a truth. We wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. It's thus by definition sound advice and much more useful advice than stating "men shouldn't rape". Gee, thanks, the victim wasn't aware of that. Giving advice does not mean you agree with what necessitated the advice. It also does not mean that you think that if someone does not follow the advice, she deserves, morally or legally, anything that happens. Either of which you are currently arguing.
  - taejo 14y ago
    > Telling women that not wearing provocative clothing will lower their chance of being raped is simply stating a truth. Source?
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      Seriously. Confusion's statement contradicts all my own reading, as well as comments from rape victims[1]/friends of rape victims. Rapists are usually not strangers looking to score. It's almost always someone the victim knows, and it's usually about power, not looks. [1] Survivor is a better word, but it was a clunky read when I tried it. I won't be bothered if you use it instead if you reply.
      - Confusion 14y ago
        I actually just thought it was a given[1], but it isn't relevant to my argument. Consider it replaced by "Telling women that not getting drunk will lower their chance of being raped" or "Telling women that not rejecting advances will lower their chance of being raped" or something else that you know is unfortunately true. [1] Even among 'friends' (acquaintances?), chances you will be hit on are higher when wearing 'less' and considering hitting-on-and-being-rejected is a common precursor to rape...

mercurial 14y ago

These comments support somebody I absolutely disagree with, but two rights don't make a wrong. Just like it might not be a good idea to say something offensive to somebody else, does not mean you deserve death threats for it. It should be OK to express your support for unpopular ideas on HN, like saying Adria Richards was right or that the people prosecuting Aaron Schwartz did the right thing. On the other hand, people sending threats... To quote the original poster, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." You disagree with stuff? Fine. Downvote and move on, or reply to it and explain why. Don't play anonymous coward.

jasonlotito 14y ago

> If inflammatory comments are even possibly leading to death threats (and it seemed to me like they might be), it's probably a good idea to not post inflammatory comments. That's 'victim blaming' and fairly inflammatory. That's not your intent. It's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped (And before people suggest it, I'm not equating rape to anything here). Basically, your intent is sound (how not to receive death threats), but your approach is insulting. The result is, the persons you are talking to are more likely to dismiss what you say because, in effect, you are blaming them for the death threats. You seem to actually care about helping. I wish I could offer some direct advice about how to approach this different, but I can't think of any at the moment. I just know that this approach is confrontational, and completely in the opposite direction of which you seem to want to go.

Confusion 14y ago
It's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped Telling women that not wearing provocative clothing will lower their chance of being raped is simply stating a truth. We wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. It's thus by definition sound advice and much more useful advice than stating "men shouldn't rape". Gee, thanks, the victim wasn't aware of that. Giving advice does not mean you agree with what necessitated the advice. It also does not mean that you think that if someone does not follow the advice, she deserves, morally or legally, anything that happens. Either of which you are currently arguing.
- taejo 14y ago
  > Telling women that not wearing provocative clothing will lower their chance of being raped is simply stating a truth. Source?
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Seriously. Confusion's statement contradicts all my own reading, as well as comments from rape victims[1]/friends of rape victims. Rapists are usually not strangers looking to score. It's almost always someone the victim knows, and it's usually about power, not looks. [1] Survivor is a better word, but it was a clunky read when I tried it. I won't be bothered if you use it instead if you reply.
    - Confusion 14y ago
      I actually just thought it was a given[1], but it isn't relevant to my argument. Consider it replaced by "Telling women that not getting drunk will lower their chance of being raped" or "Telling women that not rejecting advances will lower their chance of being raped" or something else that you know is unfortunately true. [1] Even among 'friends' (acquaintances?), chances you will be hit on are higher when wearing 'less' and considering hitting-on-and-being-rejected is a common precursor to rape...