3 ms·

I'd say stick to your day-job or whatever. You know, this is an example of the sort of vacuous insult that I don't expect to see on HN -- or at least, didn't e

by Dove 12y ago

I'd say stick to your day-job or whatever. You know, this is an example of the sort of vacuous insult that I don't expect to see on HN -- or at least, didn't expect to see a few years ago. Every time I come by here, I'm disappointed afresh by the community, and I find myself visiting and participating less and less frequently. :( I disagree with a lot of what you said, and can give you a serious response if you want one -- but from your tone, I strongly suspect you don't.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- Dove 12y ago
  You think so? I've had discussions on the topic of warfare off and on throughout the time I've been on HN, and they're usually pretty respectful. Indeed, I think that's one of the unique things about this place. For example, a couple years ago, I had a discussion about drone warfare -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957015 -- that covered very similar conceptual ground. I thought it was pretty civil. Indeed, I would have thought the technologization of warfare was something of general interest to this community, and a legitimate topic of discussion -- being at the intersection of technology and interesting changes in the way the world works. I didn't think it was just stupid politics, but that can be a landmine...
- presumeaway 12y ago
  His comment can only be read as "advocating warfare and violence as a solution to nation-state conflicts" if the reader injects it. If we can add a layer of conflict-resolution between open diplomacy and global thermonuclear war, there's something to be said for the fact that it may provide additional margin before greater escalation occurs. That's not advocating for war/or violence, that's just responsible conflict-resolution. It'd be just as fallacious as my saying anyone opposed to cyber warfare must prefer that we cut to the chase and nuke the globe. You can oppose cyber warfare but also prefer it to something you oppose even more.
teamhappy 12y ago
What upsets me the most is that these kind of personal attacks delegitimise the entire argument (which happens to be my argument too). Fortunately, there still are a couple of people here who know the difference between "not condemning" and "advocating."

by Dove 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Dove 12y ago
You think so? I've had discussions on the topic of warfare off and on throughout the time I've been on HN, and they're usually pretty respectful. Indeed, I think that's one of the unique things about this place. For example, a couple years ago, I had a discussion about drone warfare -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957015 -- that covered very similar conceptual ground. I thought it was pretty civil. Indeed, I would have thought the technologization of warfare was something of general interest to this community, and a legitimate topic of discussion -- being at the intersection of technology and interesting changes in the way the world works. I didn't think it was just stupid politics, but that can be a landmine...
presumeaway 12y ago
His comment can only be read as "advocating warfare and violence as a solution to nation-state conflicts" if the reader injects it. If we can add a layer of conflict-resolution between open diplomacy and global thermonuclear war, there's something to be said for the fact that it may provide additional margin before greater escalation occurs. That's not advocating for war/or violence, that's just responsible conflict-resolution. It'd be just as fallacious as my saying anyone opposed to cyber warfare must prefer that we cut to the chase and nuke the globe. You can oppose cyber warfare but also prefer it to something you oppose even more.

teamhappy 12y ago

What upsets me the most is that these kind of personal attacks delegitimise the entire argument (which happens to be my argument too). Fortunately, there still are a couple of people here who know the difference between "not condemning" and "advocating."