He's not wrong. 'hueving's comment history around here pushes an extreme-right-wing viewpoint that is cloaked in just enough civility to make the decent folks I know around here reconsider whether or not it's worth engaging with him. (Many don't, because it's exhausting to be alternative-facted to death.) I wouldn't expect a woman--or anyone--to tell me jack and/or shit if I was comfortable expressing worldviews that treat them the way 'hueving does. And it's not "hateful" to call out somebody whose hat is exactly that; 'DanBC (who is a fantastic poster around here) is not wrong to use the history of a poster to challenge his I-don't-see-it-so-it-doesn't-exist dismissals. As for "oddly specific," 'DanBC has been here longer than I have; you start recognizing names when the pattern of posts that make your gorge rise goes on as long as these have.
But then, I spent a minute browsing your latest work, too, so I am not particularly surprised that in your post you choose to, as with most modern conservatives, attempt to call citing a reactionary's record "hate" when it is that reactionary's behavior that exemplifies it.
>He's not wrong. 'hueving's comment history around here pushes an extreme-right-wing viewpoint
Feel free to link to any of my extreme right wing view points. I'll highlight a few of my beliefs that have been argued about recently here to save some time:
* I think unions that collectively bargain are a bad idea for software engineers because there is a wide variety in expertise and pay tied to a title fails to recognize that.
* I prefer market-based solutions to most problems because humans on a large scale don't seem to be that altruistic. (I.e. Attack CO2 with cap and trade rather than tons of regulations spread all over different industries)
* UBI as people suggest it ($10k-$20k per person annually) is currently ridiculously unsustainable in the US. People talk about it as if it's as simple as a policy decision but we would need to double our tax revenue to pay for it, which could easily cause a depression.
* All conservatives are not racists, idiots, bigots, whatever label. Stories and comments that perpetuate this idea are shallow and lack critical thought, so I will call them out for that.
* I don't think things like hiring quotas and "heads of diversity" will solve diversity issues when the supply of new graduates is so imbalanced. Hiring people based on gender/race will cause people to think they are only there to fill a checkbox and not because they are skilled.
These are pretty centrist viewpoints by US standards. I would like you to identify something you consider right wing extremism and link it.
>because it's exhausting to be alternative-facted to death
Is "alternative-facted" a new term for challenging viewpoints?
>make the decent folks I know around here reconsider whether or not it's worth engaging with him
Interesting for someone accusing me of being extreme right wing to use a play right out of Donald Trump's book. Provide a completely unprovable and unfalsifiable claim that gives the impression that "many people tell you these things".
I really don't see how personal attacks, or attaching pejorative labels to others (conservative, reactionary etc.) enhances your argument. It just makes it seem like you don't have a convincing counter-argument and need to resort to appeals to emotion / preaching to those who already agree with you. If you actually want to convince people who don't share your views, perhaps consider a different tactic.
And there's just something unsettling about going through someone's comment history to better 'target' your irrelevant personal attacks. I think it reveals more about you than it does about the person you're attacking.
If "conservative" is a pejorative--well, that's their own doing. I called myself a conservative for a very long time until it became obvious that American conservatism required of its adherents a level of misanthropy that I could not ever support. Hell, I worked for Republican congressional campaigns, twice!
But you seem to misapprehend me, and maybe that's my fault. I don't want to convince any extremist. My intention is to deny them the legitimacy of the chin-stroking, pince-nez-adjusting "thoughtfulness and reason" that they so earnestly adopt. Because that posture is very, very good at convincing the low-information reader that they are credible. They are not. The extreme right wing understands that this isn't about facts (but are happy to retreat to the sinecure of "what about your facts?!" when challenged), but about narratives. I will (and 'DanBC did) challenge 'hueving's narrative because his narrative doesn't make sense: of course he doesn't see it, those who experience it would have to be themselves reality-averse not to realize it would just be an invitation for a battery of well-actuallys and backhanded snipes. It's who he chooses to show himself as. He has no credibility when he leans on what he sees, and shouldn't.
As far as "going through someone's comment history": I'm a known quantity around here and I use my real name. Others may choose to use pseudonyms and that's fine, but their histories here are important for context. 'hueving I recognize by sight. The poster to whom I replied is not one I recognize, but he has comments blurfing about "liberals" literally on the first pace of his comment history. I'm not going to go digging, but I like knowing whether I'm dealing with somebody who's actually acting in good faith. He wasn't, and you can bet I'll call him on it.
DanBC sticks in my mind as a poster that I disagree with on most things. Can you tell me why he is a "fantastic poster"?
> is not wrong to use the history of a poster to challenge his I-don't-see-it-so-it-doesn't-exist dismissals
It is on the basis that DanBC has no idea how HN post history has to do with what that poster sees. It's just an Ad-hom.
> I spent a minute browsing your latest work, too
> as with most modern conservatives
Is your own profile fair game then too? Whatever I dislike about you past comments I can dredge up randomly to harass you with whenever you make a comment I don't like?
It's why I use it; also, because my motivation for quoting usernames was that people had dumb usernames, like "the", that I was mistakenly evaluating in sentence context. :)
You definitely can't use @username on HN; many (most?) HN commenters don't have @username on Twitter. I'm @tqbf on Twitter, not @tptacek.
But then, I spent a minute browsing your latest work, too, so I am not particularly surprised that in your post you choose to, as with most modern conservatives, attempt to call citing a reactionary's record "hate" when it is that reactionary's behavior that exemplifies it.