6 ms·

> Side note, it seems like anything COVID related on HN attracts a lot of green accounts. (waves hand) Those are not the paid trolls you are looking for, it is

by pbaka 5y ago

> Side note, it seems like anything COVID related on HN attracts a lot of green accounts. (waves hand) Those are not the paid trolls you are looking for, it is well known those are only found in Russia. That's one explanation. Maybe people also use green accounts because they don't wanna end up on the white houses "disinformation lists", particularly when reading on such an article as this. Another of my answers under this news article got flagged in less than 2 minutes, even though it was only a sarcastic couple of sentences about first accusing the wrong people then ignoring the lessons of history. Ironic...

mustacheemperor 5y ago
>because they don't wanna end up on the white houses "disinformation lists", particularly when reading on such an article This kind of tinfoil mindset is generally pointless clutter in a considerate discussion, so it makes sense it is flagged quckly. >it was only a sarcastic couple of sentences Sarcasm is almost invariably worthless clutter, regardless of the subject of discussion. I always refer to A Separate Peace, "As I said, this was my sarcastic summer. It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak."
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  And the weak needn't be given any voice.
  - mustacheemperor 5y ago
    I don't think the phrasing of Knowles' quote translates 1:1 from the context of the book to contemporary debate, but I think sarcasm is a frequent tool of a weak argument.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      Deferring to quotes is frequently the tool of a weak argument. In fact I would argue virtually every linguistic device has frequently been used in weak argument.
      - mustacheemperor 5y ago
        Sure, but in this case I'm just adding the reference alongside a pretty simple point: Employing sarcasm in hackernews discussions is very seldom valuable and often is not respecting the community guidelines.[0] It was worthwhile to clarify I am not quoting Knowles word for word as contemporary gospel, but the semantics aren't really relevant. Point is, user was downvoted because a "sarcastic couple of sentences" have no intrinsic worth for this discussion, not because of anything conspiratorial. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        >user was downvoted because a "sarcastic couple of sentences" I read the rules. Looks like you didn't: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [0] Conspicuously absent from document [0] is the word "sarcasm." [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        mustacheemperor 5y ago
        I didn't refer to voting in my own comment, but maybe it would have been better not to engage the discussion any further with the user who had been flagged, since that engaged a discussion related to how their comments were flagged. Regardless, I am going to stop replying now - we are ourselves cluttering the discussion with a pointless quibble. >Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Cheers.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        I thought we were having a curious conversation. >Regardless, I am going to stop replying now You'll be sorely missed.
        pbaka 5y ago
        I was not downvoted, I was flagged and removed.
dekhn 5y ago
white house disinformation list? I mean at least get your conspiracy theories right, it's the NSA, and it's not a list, it's a database.
- pbaka 5y ago
  I was refering to the white house spokesperson's Jen Psaki's comments a couple of weeks ago. But yeah, you are right, alongside the databases of a couple "private public partnership" homeland security dept's contractors. A question for you in regards to the subject of the US security apparatus : is it really still "theories" at this point ? Maybe are we starting to talk semi-founded allegations now, no ?

by pbaka 5y ago

mustacheemperor 5y ago

>because they don't wanna end up on the white houses "disinformation lists", particularly when reading on such an article This kind of tinfoil mindset is generally pointless clutter in a considerate discussion, so it makes sense it is flagged quckly. >it was only a sarcastic couple of sentences Sarcasm is almost invariably worthless clutter, regardless of the subject of discussion. I always refer to A Separate Peace, "As I said, this was my sarcastic summer. It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak."

quantumBerry 5y ago
And the weak needn't be given any voice.
- mustacheemperor 5y ago
  I don't think the phrasing of Knowles' quote translates 1:1 from the context of the book to contemporary debate, but I think sarcasm is a frequent tool of a weak argument.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    Deferring to quotes is frequently the tool of a weak argument. In fact I would argue virtually every linguistic device has frequently been used in weak argument.
    - mustacheemperor 5y ago
      Sure, but in this case I'm just adding the reference alongside a pretty simple point: Employing sarcasm in hackernews discussions is very seldom valuable and often is not respecting the community guidelines.[0] It was worthwhile to clarify I am not quoting Knowles word for word as contemporary gospel, but the semantics aren't really relevant. Point is, user was downvoted because a "sarcastic couple of sentences" have no intrinsic worth for this discussion, not because of anything conspiratorial. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        >user was downvoted because a "sarcastic couple of sentences" I read the rules. Looks like you didn't: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [0] Conspicuously absent from document [0] is the word "sarcasm." [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        mustacheemperor 5y ago
        I didn't refer to voting in my own comment, but maybe it would have been better not to engage the discussion any further with the user who had been flagged, since that engaged a discussion related to how their comments were flagged. Regardless, I am going to stop replying now - we are ourselves cluttering the discussion with a pointless quibble. >Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Cheers.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        I thought we were having a curious conversation. >Regardless, I am going to stop replying now You'll be sorely missed.
        pbaka 5y ago
        I was not downvoted, I was flagged and removed.

dekhn 5y ago

white house disinformation list? I mean at least get your conspiracy theories right, it's the NSA, and it's not a list, it's a database.

pbaka 5y ago
I was refering to the white house spokesperson's Jen Psaki's comments a couple of weeks ago. But yeah, you are right, alongside the databases of a couple "private public partnership" homeland security dept's contractors. A question for you in regards to the subject of the US security apparatus : is it really still "theories" at this point ? Maybe are we starting to talk semi-founded allegations now, no ?