The first section of your comment does not make sense. I point out the possible proximal origin of the 'everything is political' line and mention that 'We' (which in this context clearly indicates the 'internet population' in a given time frame) did not as a rule throw slurs or label people. There's no contradiction here since these two lines - origin of a line, habits of an internet generation - are not connected unless you (erroneously) assume that the denizens of the early internet were all Marxists. They weren't, that was back in the days the '
Evil Empire' still existed and Marxism was still known to be a bad idea by most people.
Then to the rest:
The first line you quote - Comrade Knee-Jerk - is satire so that is in a different category.
The second is a good example, "useful idiots" of the "DSA" which in my opinion they absolutely are but you're right in calling me out, guilty as charged. They're still useful idiots though...
The third line isn't an example of me labelling anyone, there's no label there.
Let's take a gander at your rather prolific commenting habits, just to see what you're up to:
Their submission history is reminiscent of other motivated accounts that dilute the website's intellectual curiosity with zero-sum editorials. It's certainly deliberate, and their comment history seems to defend the submissions rather than conceding their obvious low quality.
No, you are willfully misinterpreting the purpose of their project and suggesting completely unrelated, insane and unrealistic remediation.
I stopped after two pages. Maybe you need to check the guidelines once more, especially those sections regarding astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like (first comment) and respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith (second comment).
Now that we've both taken apart each other's commenting histories maybe we can go back to the regular program, post and comment about things we're interested in and try to keep the politicking at bay? It has been made much harder by the way the don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle rule is applied but we can still try. Just assume that the person on the other side of the screen might not agree with you whom to vote for but otherwise has many of the same interests. That does not make him or her evil and it does not mean his or her opinion on unrelated subjects is not worth considering.
Then to the rest:
The first line you quote - Comrade Knee-Jerk - is satire so that is in a different category.
The second is a good example, "useful idiots" of the "DSA" which in my opinion they absolutely are but you're right in calling me out, guilty as charged. They're still useful idiots though...
The third line isn't an example of me labelling anyone, there's no label there.
Let's take a gander at your rather prolific commenting habits, just to see what you're up to:
Their submission history is reminiscent of other motivated accounts that dilute the website's intellectual curiosity with zero-sum editorials. It's certainly deliberate, and their comment history seems to defend the submissions rather than conceding their obvious low quality.
No, you are willfully misinterpreting the purpose of their project and suggesting completely unrelated, insane and unrealistic remediation.
I stopped after two pages. Maybe you need to check the guidelines once more, especially those sections regarding astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like (first comment) and respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith (second comment).
Now that we've both taken apart each other's commenting histories maybe we can go back to the regular program, post and comment about things we're interested in and try to keep the politicking at bay? It has been made much harder by the way the don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle rule is applied but we can still try. Just assume that the person on the other side of the screen might not agree with you whom to vote for but otherwise has many of the same interests. That does not make him or her evil and it does not mean his or her opinion on unrelated subjects is not worth considering.