5 ms·

Pause for a moment, replace "Beck" in your comment with the name of any famous person you have even a little respect for, and then reread what you wrote as thou

Pause for a moment, replace "Beck" in your comment with the name of any famous person you have even a little respect for, and then reread what you wrote as though it was written by someone that dislikes that person. All the same thoughts occurred to me too. Then I realized I was being dumb, and fortunately one of the few graces of getting older is that I don't say what I'm thinking as often as I used to.

teach 12y ago
Hear, hear. I can't tell you the number of times I've drafted a comment on HN, revised it a couple of times, and think cancelled before posting. That wouldn't have happened in my twenties.
- ilyanep 12y ago
  I'm in my twenties and I do that all the time, though perhaps that's just anxiety more than wisdom.
deciplex 12y ago
So, should we not discuss the merits of a person who has a public life? Glenn Beck is a public and controversial figure, and controversial for good reason - in fact I don't think he would object to the supposition that he goes out of his way to be controversial. So, if someone brings him up in conversation or in a blog post, I shouldn't respond in kind because I might offend someone? I mean, keep in mind, I didn't bring up Glenn Beck. He's a central part of the article, for crying out loud, and Arrington references his book multiple times, compares himself to him (and Churchill by proxy), and on and on. It is not unreasonable that discussion of this article would include Glenn Beck, since he's such an integral part of it, and it is not reasonable to ask that people keep their personal opinions of Beck out of that discussion. Your comment is seemingly pretty benign, but I will tell you that I take a great deal of offense to it. You are thought-policing - simple as that. I don't know where you think you derive the authority to tell me what topics are and are not off limits - especially when those topics are referenced directly in the article at hand. And, for the record, I often do start to write a comment and then think better of it. This time I didn't. Perhaps you should have.

teach 12y ago

Hear, hear. I can't tell you the number of times I've drafted a comment on HN, revised it a couple of times, and think cancelled before posting. That wouldn't have happened in my twenties.

ilyanep 12y ago
I'm in my twenties and I do that all the time, though perhaps that's just anxiety more than wisdom.

deciplex 12y ago

So, should we not discuss the merits of a person who has a public life? Glenn Beck is a public and controversial figure, and controversial for good reason - in fact I don't think he would object to the supposition that he goes out of his way to be controversial. So, if someone brings him up in conversation or in a blog post, I shouldn't respond in kind because I might offend someone? I mean, keep in mind, I didn't bring up Glenn Beck. He's a central part of the article, for crying out loud, and Arrington references his book multiple times, compares himself to him (and Churchill by proxy), and on and on. It is not unreasonable that discussion of this article would include Glenn Beck, since he's such an integral part of it, and it is not reasonable to ask that people keep their personal opinions of Beck out of that discussion. Your comment is seemingly pretty benign, but I will tell you that I take a great deal of offense to it. You are thought-policing - simple as that. I don't know where you think you derive the authority to tell me what topics are and are not off limits - especially when those topics are referenced directly in the article at hand. And, for the record, I often do start to write a comment and then think better of it. This time I didn't. Perhaps you should have.