A great HN feature would be a link to a chatgpt chat, with the contents of the article loaded into the context, summary already generated. Some of these articles are five sentences of interesting information, hidden among five paragraphs of forced human interest.
> I have never been accused of being a racist transphobe whatever, if that’s your number one issue with the site maybe some inward reflection is in order
Perhaps you simply haven't encountered the kind of person who, at the vaguest sense of an opportunity to claim the title of Most Moral Person, will leap up to condescend you based on the most uncharitable and motivated reading of your words.
If one person calls you an asshole, then they might be an asshole. If everyone calls you an asshole, then some inward reflection is in order because you're likely coming off as an asshole.
If it happens again and again, in different circles with different people, like GP indicates happens, then maybe, just maybe it's not everyone else that's the problem.
That is not really good advice. There are frequent mobs that believe others to be assholes. For that matter, I believe you almost always qualify for that if you form that strong opinions about someone from internet comments because that directly reflects on your narrow perspective and you willingness to act on insufficient information.
If I think AITA subs and similar communities really aren't very tolerant people at all. Sure, there are people that like to provoke, but I think some subs are just some form of merger of similar people believing themselves to be oh so generous in their judgmentality but in reality are pretty toxic by almost all standards.
> in different circles with different people, like GP indicates happens
But you just chose to ignore it and soldier on with your rambling diatribe.
If people in completely different subs like StarTrek and CanadaCoronavirus and god knows how many others all say someone is an asshole, then the person is just a fucking asshole. That’s all there is to it.
It’s not some big conspiracy caused by “merging of subs” or whatever other BS you and your friends come up with to justify your shitty behavior.
Considering this thread is no longer on the front page and you somehow chose to reply to all my comments and their sibling threads in here, I’m just going to go on a limb to say you’re probably a sock puppet for someone else here. Next time, just use your main account.
Reddit is not one person, you understand that right?
If multiple people on different parts of Reddit are telling you you’re an asshole— something I explicitly called out— then Occam’s Razor says that you are, in fact, the asshole.
> I think we both know that Reddit has a certain political viewpoint, so let’s not pretend that we don’t.
Bullshit.
Reddit is made up of millions of people with different viewpoints. There are subreddits that are left leaning, centrist, right leaning, and everything in between. And many, many more which have no political viewpoint because they literally have nothing to do with politics.
To claim an entire user base has a “certain political viewpoint” is plainly ignoring the reality of the situation.
It certainly is a great strawman but it’s in no way shape or form representative of reality.
I’m going to ignore the rest of your comment because you clearly can’t conceptualize the basic idea that Reddit is not one mind. Come back to me when this most basic of concepts has sunk in and we can have an actual discussion rather than whatever this idiotic back and forth you’re insisting on is.
Congratulations on doing the bare minimum and still coming to
a shit conclusion.
Did you also bother to read your own comments while you were at it? I would have assumed you did but you clearly have shown that comprehension is not in your wheelhouse.
> painting any assessment of Reddit to be a statement that Reddit has a single political opinion, which is a statement that nobody is making
I mean, that's literally what you did, but go off sis.
> I think we both know that Reddit has a certain political viewpoint, so let’s not pretend that we don’t.
Gotta love how you can't even keep your own argument straight, let alone comprehending a basic fact like "millions of people have their own thoughts and opinions on a site"
You literally said the statement that you then claimed nobody ever made.
Almost word for word.
Is your cognitive dissonance that extreme? This gaslighting is idiotic when your own comments are right there to read.
Just stop. You’ve clearly proven you can’t even keep your own arguments straight, let alone properly respond to others’. There is no basis for discussion if you refuse to acknowledge the things you’ve clearly said.
Again, Reddit leans left of the general population.
Again, this doesn’t preclude there being a multitude of political affiliations on Reddit.
I’ve been very consistent on this and think you’ve done very poorly in response. It’s possible you’re so angry you’re not even reading what you’re quoting.
Your entire point up til now has been that Reddit has had a singular opinion. You have referred to Reddit as a singular entity with a singular set of beliefs and thoughts. Multiple times.
> it’s Reddit that is out of touch.
> If it’s only Reddit that finds many people’s behaviour objectionable Occam’s Razor would determine that Reddit is the problem
Hell, even in this comment you continue to do it.
> Again, Reddit leans left of the general population.
Now suddenly Reddit is multiple people with multiple opinions?
> I’ve been very consistent on this
Consistent is the opposite of what you've been. But ok.
Yes, when stating the average of all political discourse on Reddit, one can save time by saying that this is Reddit’s politics. It is only you that is talking about some kind of hive mind.
The underlying motivation in these sorts of exchanges is rarely a desire for a global increase of genuine self-examination, but more often to exploit an opportunity for ostentatious preening. We know this because your logic can be trivially inverted to point the mirror in the reverse direction. So, reflection being what it is, if self-examination were the true goal, one imagines that those advocating it would at least show first that they had done it themselves.
The underlying motivation is to have assholes take a closer look at themselves instead of continuously blaming those around them for what ultimately is the result of their own actions.
If this struck such a nerve with you, then you may want to take a step back and re-evaluate why you're so deeply triggered by people advocating for introspection instead of deflection.
It's pretty clear from your comment you won't, but that's a separate issue.
Have you considered examining why you feel the need to project false moral superiority onto, obliquely insult, and psychoanalyze strangers? Do you think this suggests a sober self-awareness and firm grounding of your principles -- qualities I'm sure you feel you possess and believe you're projecting?
Have you considered examining why you feel you need to use the most opaque and overly-elaborate way to say an incredibly simple concept as a way to “project false moral superiority onto [and] obliquely insult […] strangers?”
Projecting your obvious superiority complex onto others while at the same time accusing others of doing so is, quite frankly, hilarious.
Next time, just introspect instead of digging this idiotic hole further. It’s not really that hard to ask yourself “am I the asshole” and it’s quite obvious you’ve never done it in your life.
Either way, I’m done with whatever you want to call this obnoxious rambling of yours.
> Dry shelters are arguably a massive part of the problem.
As someone who has housed and lived close to addicts, to put it plainly: this is a naive, academic view. Dry shelter are "a massive part of the problem"? Absolutely incorrect, and harmfully ignorant if implemented at societal scale.
As someone who provided food and shelter to an addict in my own home, guaranteeing these things does nothing to increase the willingness to quit heroin. Material deprivation may cause you to seek drugs, but remedying deprivation does not lead to recovery. In fact, I honestly believe offering it unconditionally hampers it.
If your understanding of the scientific evidence is that it supports "dry shelters are harmful and their existence exacerbates heroin addiction," then I think that's a good argument in favor of the inclusion of anecdotes on this topic.
If your understanding of the scientific method and critical inquiry amounts to "if you have some belief I don't like then anecdotes are useful" then you need to level up your understanding of the scientific method and critical inquiry.
2) fails to distinguish between temporary hardship homelessness and that resulting of addiction/illness
Should not be relied upon. For the first, there is an obvious incentive towards exaggerating one's stay in state, and no counter-incentive whatsoever. For the latter, these are two separate problems which need drastically different solutions.
This is tedious. It's a time-worn strategy of all politicians and activists to justify their preferred policies pretextually. If you have something to say about the actual policy he's discussing -- industry protectionism -- you should make that comment instead.
But if your comment is just "one time someone from the other team said the quiet part aloud" that's rather naive and unremarkable.
Scroll down TFA to the section called "terms that became real". When trolls or adversaries can use citogenesis to boostrap facts into the mainstream from a cold start, what does "98% factual accuracy" mean? At some point, you'll have to include the "formerly known as BS" facts.
"A cop should risk his life to effect an arrest, even if that act will be immediately undermined by the prosecutor and will have no measurable difference on society."
Are you saying they shouldn't value their own lives, but instead behave as instruction-following robots.
Cops aren’t really risking their lives. Statistically they’re more likely to die of Covid than they are of trying to arrest someone. They have armor in their uniforms, carry multiple manners of debilitating a person from multiple ranges. This puts them at a massive advantage compared to your average homeless person or impoverished criminal, who likely can’t even afford a gun.
I don’t know what you mean here. I’m not trying to be stupid, I just have no idea what you’re trying to get at. I don’t see what either point has to do with my statement.
The idea that police officers are in constant danger of coming home in a body bag is copaganda. Police work is one of the safer occupations. We don't idolize the guys/gals who pick up our trash, but they have higher death rates.
As a developer, I would get pretty upset and demoralized if someone came and periodically reverted all my commits. Imagine if I actually had to risk my life to make those "commits"?
It's not hard to see why they stay in the car and keep driving if the arrests don't even lead to prosections.
Frankly, if your commits were being loudly criticized as harming/killing people then you have no right to sulk off and stop doing your job because they were reverted. And it also doesn’t excuse you to feel entitled to remain employed while you stopped doing your job. If you felt that way, quit so someone who is willing to do the work can get hired.
Additionally, being a cop is a pretty safe job! It’s not even top 10 most dangerous jobs. Most injuries are because of the cops own traffic violations or, more recently, Covid.
> Frankly, if your commits were being loudly criticized as harming/killing people then you have no right
No, my commits are perfectly fine, as are the vast majority of my peers' code. Only an extremely small number of complaints are generated, across a number of commits many magnitudes larger -- and not all of those complaints are of equal merit.
> If you felt that way, quit so someone who is willing to do the work can get hired.
Unfortunately, recruiting is down across most (maybe all) major cities. Maybe the would-be recruits see it differently than you -- with nothing to stake -- do?
Unfortunately, your commits aren’t fine, very likely you are covering for your murdering peer and deserve equal criticism for doing so. It’s well known that cops that fight corruption in the police force end up forced out, institutionalized under false pretenses, or straight up executed by other cops. This leaves the only police remaining the corrupt ones, either perpetuating corruption first hand or second handedly watching it go down and not doing anything.
Unfortunately, the matter of fact is, the police force decide to stop enforcing laws when they’re criticized for problems the police force caused. It’s childish. Police steal more money than actual amounts of theft in the country through civil forfeiture. Police are more likely to commit domestic violence. Police hired defense to argue that they don’t have any obligation to protect individuals or intervene in crime, instead of punishing cops who shirk their work. And then when any cops are critiqued the entire force stops doing their jobs and blames the critics for it.
I'm going to steer this conversation back on track, and not chase down these non-facts you're asserting.
The question is: why aren't police making as many arrests (commits). And the answer I'm proposing is: because DAs are reverting their work.
They are not reverting their work only in the cases of supposed police misconduct, so your counterpoint about bad commits is a diversion from the point. The DAs are not doing their job because they believe, frankly, that criminal justice as constructed cannot work. They don't believe a lot of crimes should be prosecuted even. For example, in DC something like 60% of gun possession cases are dropped. In Chicago and Philly it's higher than 90%. That has nothing to do with police brutality (bad commits) [0]
(And btw, these are the same people who think guns should be banned flat out)
What that means is the PM (district attorney) has the developers working on a product they have no intention of shipping (actual justice). Police are people too, and nobody is going to do purposeless work. You wouldn't at your job, and neither would they at their much more dangerous and stressful job. Nor is anyone in a great rush to sign up for this job, despite offered salaries being very high right now.
Police misconduct is a distraction from this point, unless you think 90% of gun possession charges were generated abusively -- which would be a completely innumerate claim.
If we're going with the developer metaphor, it's more like you're making a bunch of low quality PRs that aren't adding any value to the product and the maintainer is choosing not to merge some of them.
It's more like you're a pre-2012 glibc contributor who's making a bunch of high quality PRs that would add significant value to the product but Ulrich Drepper is choosing not to merge most of them for no good reason.
That's a extremely naive way to look at police. But if you think the police do "high quality" anything then you're probably not the kind of person who could be persuaded otherwise.
I can't read the article, but does it control for race within poverty? A lot of poverty conclusions are confounded by race, yet even within poor cohorts you will find significant disparities by race. For example,
> Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
This chart visualizes that point: SAT scores of whites in the poorest segment exceed those of blacks from all but the richest segment, and Asians exceed them no matter their income:
I'm not sure you read your own source. It seems you just cherry-picked a couple of passages that support racist views and decided to ignore everything else.
Your own source mentions not only the correlation between income and SAT scores, but it also points out a link between quality of the education services provided to some communities and social pressure. It's also telling that the outliers are explained in a way that boils down to "they succeed in spite of everything we throw at them".
It seems like you’re projecting racist views onto the parent comment. It never discounted the possibility of other race-related factors being the cause of the achievement gap, it was just challenging whether all of it could be accredited to wealth disparities.
> It seems like you’re projecting racist views onto the parent comment.
What? OP's argument was purely race-based. OP made absolutely no point other than underlining race-based correlations. If you remove all race-based remarks from OP's post, nothing is left.
> It never discounted the possibility of other race-related factors (...)
In your own words, you describe OP's post as focusing on "race-related factors", and even then you try to accuse those who point that out of "projecting racist views"?
For example, the differences in scores that is not explained by income could be caused entirely by disparate treatment of children by adults based on the child's race. That would be a race-related factor.
1. I'm pointing out that poverty and racial factors often confound each other. The comment I was replying to made it seem like racial effects disappear when you control for income. If you care about racial equality, then I would think it's in your favor to argue against someone who says racial effects don't exist.
2. It's not racist to point out that certain outcomes correlate with race.
