5 ms·

I guess people can’t handle that one of their favorite writers did something despicable. No need to downvote so much, just comes across like you’re trying to c

I guess people can’t handle that one of their favorite writers did something despicable. No need to downvote so much, just comes across like you’re trying to conceal the truth, which is that the guy supported a monster.

rgrieselhuber 2y ago
I was rather surprised at the number of downvotes pointing out that the guy supported an (alleged…) child rapist.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  I'll undo one of your downvotes, I guess. I've never heard of this guy in my life, and I'm not exactly poorly-read. No idea what the connection with HN is.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38808985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38808985>
  - ShamelessC 2y ago
    It’s not flamebait. There was no deliberate attempt to piss people off. That it happened to anyway is entirely the fault of those outraged. It’s a relevant fact. People just get insecure and then defensive when they find one of their favorite people did something stupid. Same thing happened with Michael Jackson whose music was evidently so good that no one really batted an eye at all the awful shit he probably did. Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern. It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.
    - pvg 2y ago
      It's very much flamebait to go looking for some random shit someone did and then paste it into a thread context-free, which is what the commenter self-admittedly did. Going on about downvotes and how everybody else is a censorious sheep is definitely against the site guidelines so there's nothing particularly odd about that part.
      - ShamelessC 2y ago
        Okay well let's just agree to disagree then.
      - rgrieselhuber 2y ago
        What would be the context of signing one's name to support something like Polanski that would make it excusable? It's not random shit I went looking for, I was educating myself on a writer I hadn't heard of and came across that action, which I find to be reprehensible.
      - goes21551 2y ago
        Referring to it as random shit is just yuck. There are lots of people who would like to know the positives and negatives of someone who died. This is a random message board, it's not like ’rgrieselhuber is going to the funeral page and commenting. So it's alright. This guy supported him in 2009, 30 years after the act. Also, it's no secret RP did not stop his abuses after 1977. It's literally a thread about Paul Auster, what more context do you need? HN has a history of being cozy on abusers, supporters etc, which alienates a lot of smart people from participating. It's unfortunate that you chose to die on this hill.
        pvg 2y ago
        "My thoughts and feelings about the art of X changed in Y ways when I learned about Z" That's a comment in a conversation "I went to the Wikipedia page of someone I hadn't heard of and pasted the first thing I saw in 'Controversies' into a thread" That's a shitpost. To take nothing from the art of shitposting, this is a random messageboard for conversations, not a random messageboard for shitposting.

rgrieselhuber 2y ago

I was rather surprised at the number of downvotes pointing out that the guy supported an (alleged…) child rapist.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 2y ago
I'll undo one of your downvotes, I guess. I've never heard of this guy in my life, and I'm not exactly poorly-read. No idea what the connection with HN is.
dredmorbius 2y ago
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38808985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38808985>
- ShamelessC 2y ago
  It’s not flamebait. There was no deliberate attempt to piss people off. That it happened to anyway is entirely the fault of those outraged. It’s a relevant fact. People just get insecure and then defensive when they find one of their favorite people did something stupid. Same thing happened with Michael Jackson whose music was evidently so good that no one really batted an eye at all the awful shit he probably did. Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern. It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.
  - pvg 2y ago
    It's very much flamebait to go looking for some random shit someone did and then paste it into a thread context-free, which is what the commenter self-admittedly did. Going on about downvotes and how everybody else is a censorious sheep is definitely against the site guidelines so there's nothing particularly odd about that part.
    - ShamelessC 2y ago
      Okay well let's just agree to disagree then.
    - rgrieselhuber 2y ago
      What would be the context of signing one's name to support something like Polanski that would make it excusable? It's not random shit I went looking for, I was educating myself on a writer I hadn't heard of and came across that action, which I find to be reprehensible.
    - goes21551 2y ago
      Referring to it as random shit is just yuck. There are lots of people who would like to know the positives and negatives of someone who died. This is a random message board, it's not like ’rgrieselhuber is going to the funeral page and commenting. So it's alright. This guy supported him in 2009, 30 years after the act. Also, it's no secret RP did not stop his abuses after 1977. It's literally a thread about Paul Auster, what more context do you need? HN has a history of being cozy on abusers, supporters etc, which alienates a lot of smart people from participating. It's unfortunate that you chose to die on this hill.
      - pvg 2y ago
        "My thoughts and feelings about the art of X changed in Y ways when I learned about Z" That's a comment in a conversation "I went to the Wikipedia page of someone I hadn't heard of and pasted the first thing I saw in 'Controversies' into a thread" That's a shitpost. To take nothing from the art of shitposting, this is a random messageboard for conversations, not a random messageboard for shitposting.