zardgiv

9 ms·

31.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Quick check: is there an answer to this question that would change your mind? If so, what is it?
32.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Two ways in which you're wrong here: First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech. Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government i
33.
by zardgiv 10y ago
I haven't read the court transcripts, but I suspect the court didn't address the question of insurance coverage and premiums ;)
34.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Freedom of the press for only publications we like is not really valuable.
35.
by zardgiv 10y ago
I don't know, should they? What if they had a billionaire secretly funding them ;-)
36.
by zardgiv 10y ago
From the article, the reason we know that Thiel was funding this in the first place: "[...] an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay
37.
by zardgiv 10y ago
I don't feel like you're really trying to engage critically here.
38.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Of course, I was merely addressing the claim that it's always OK to fund lawsuits.
39.
by zardgiv 10y ago
I was directly replying to the comment that "They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose." Actually reading the context would make the logic much less baffling.
40.
by zardgiv 10y ago
It's not to say that this is what happened here, but our legal system disagrees that it's always OK to finance a lawsuit (see SLAPP).
41.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Like I said above, it seems that for a lot of people, the freedom of speech rhetoric just comes down to whose ox is getting gored.
42.
by zardgiv 10y ago
They specifically dropped the part of the case that would allow an insurance payout. Typically, people who don't want to destroy an organization will prefer to get the more assured money from insurance.
43.
by zardgiv 10y ago
I must admit, it is funny seeing the inversion on this from the usual free speech absolutists :)
44.
by zardgiv 10y ago
As long as we're quoting someone with an obvious vested interest, how do you feel about what Gawker points to: "Hillary Clinton’s secret email account, Bill Cosby’s history with women, the mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker, Tom C
45.
by zardgiv 10y ago
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect. The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disa
46.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Nah, he just talked about how some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being good slaves. Seems to be a weird set of priorities where that is deserving of free speech protection, but Gawker as an actual press organization needs to
47.
by zardgiv 10y ago
It's pretty clear that "objective and rational" is a cover for you to reinforce your existing beliefs, rather than any sort of critical thinking, but, hey, you do you.
48.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Dude, your most recent comments on HN are defending Moldbug. This puts to lie any free speech argument there, so just say you're happy because Gawker is a bunch of SJWs and move on.
49.
by zardgiv 10y ago
They were "abusing their freedom of speech rights?" That's a pretty narrow view of freedom of speech. Unsurprising, though, since it's an organization you disagree with. But I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment
50.
by zardgiv 10y ago
It's great when you define journalism as "thing I agree with." Powerful concept of press freedom there!
51.
by zardgiv 10y ago
How long have you been saving up this one-word response? Because the parent was addressing a complaint about small sample size, and basic reading comprehension would show you that your response was off-topic and did not logically follow.
52.
by zardgiv 10y ago
I mean, when you say that "women (in general) are attracted to [X]," since youre ralking about half of the world's population, that's a pretty extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to support it.
53.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Well, they claimed that the "people problems" were caused by Democrats' policies, so it'd be useful to have some clarification as to what that is before we identify root causes. Unless your implication is that Democrats
54.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Is there a citation for women in general being attracted to power? Or perhaps you're just reinforcing gender stereotypes that are convenient for the narrative you're spinning?
55.
by zardgiv 10y ago
Please elaborate on what these "people problems" are. I'm interested in what you think is common amongst the cities you've cited.
56.
by zardgiv 11y ago
When did it become acceptable on Hacker News to post someone else's comments wholesale without any other contribution? I usually only see this with Yudkowsky or Scott Alexander quotes, so is it something from the LessWrong community?
57.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Usually people who aren't trying to muddy the waters and defend will make a normative statement about the underlying topic. What's your take on whether some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves?
58.
by zardgiv 11y ago
Amazing. I read some more, and Moldbug's posted approvingly about American Renaissance! It's too perfect.
59.
by zardgiv 11y ago
OK, so you recognize that in this case social shaming is not being used to change Moldbug's mind. If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only
60.
by zardgiv 11y ago
What should be suspect now, and something worth reflecting on, is the narrative being pushed by them since that's usually how "lying with statistics" works.

More ›