8 ms·

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People get stupid when they're this opposed to something. His argument had absolutely no value and your characterizat

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People get stupid when they're this opposed to something. His argument had absolutely no value and your characterization of it was spot on.

waqf 15y ago
I don't think mike-cardwell deserves downvoting either, but I don't think your (and his) characterization was quite fair. mseebach didn't intend to make a convincing anti-SOPA argument, he was commenting under the assumption that his audience was already opposed to SOPA. He may have been wrong — that's a danger on the internet — but I don't think that makes him stupid.
- KeithMajhor 15y ago
  Lets break it down. mseebach: "You're writing that as if SOPA was one side of an argument where good people could reasonably be on either one side or the other, and HN and Google just happens to be on the same. But it's not, SOPA has a right and a wrong side. We're on the right side..." parody: "My opinion is right because I say it is." mseebach: "Google is on the right side and good people are either uninformed or on the right side." parody: "Anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion is either bad, or needs educating." mseebach: "It's not unreasonable to wish for Google to employ some of their considerable clout in evangelising the right side." I was wrong. This part has value. The "right side" part of it is overreaching though. In my opinion. Also, I didn't call him stupid, I called the downvoters stupid. I meant it in the way people usually do: I don't like it. The people who can downvote are supposed to be the pillars of our community. Yet they seem more interested in policing opinions than quality. More interested in SOPA than HN. Then they turn around and complain that it's all going to shit. Come on... lets promote the strongest arguments and promptly refute the lousy ones.

8 ms·

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People get stupid when they're this opposed to something. His argument had absolutely no value and your characterizat

by KeithMajhor 15y ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People get stupid when they're this opposed to something. His argument had absolutely no value and your characterization of it was spot on.

waqf 15y ago
I don't think mike-cardwell deserves downvoting either, but I don't think your (and his) characterization was quite fair. mseebach didn't intend to make a convincing anti-SOPA argument, he was commenting under the assumption that his audience was already opposed to SOPA. He may have been wrong — that's a danger on the internet — but I don't think that makes him stupid.
- KeithMajhor 15y ago
  Lets break it down. mseebach: "You're writing that as if SOPA was one side of an argument where good people could reasonably be on either one side or the other, and HN and Google just happens to be on the same. But it's not, SOPA has a right and a wrong side. We're on the right side..." parody: "My opinion is right because I say it is." mseebach: "Google is on the right side and good people are either uninformed or on the right side." parody: "Anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion is either bad, or needs educating." mseebach: "It's not unreasonable to wish for Google to employ some of their considerable clout in evangelising the right side." I was wrong. This part has value. The "right side" part of it is overreaching though. In my opinion. Also, I didn't call him stupid, I called the downvoters stupid. I meant it in the way people usually do: I don't like it. The people who can downvote are supposed to be the pillars of our community. Yet they seem more interested in policing opinions than quality. More interested in SOPA than HN. Then they turn around and complain that it's all going to shit. Come on... lets promote the strongest arguments and promptly refute the lousy ones.