Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I believe the GP was contesting the "In absolute terms!" part of the comment.


sort by: page size:

I think that is how the GP's comment was meant to be taken.

Sounds to me like the GP is in shock about such an over-the-top claim. And it sounds like you're trying to pretend to read his/her statement for something other than what it is.

Did GP make such a claim? I didn’t see it, but maybe the comment was edited.

Yes, and that's exactly what the GP was trying to say.

I think the gp was making the same point via sarcasm.

That's a statement of fact, but the GP was asking why it is actually so.

I think you're giving too much credit.

It's more likely GP was talking BS than that they made an absolute statement where they really meant a very specific nuanced statement.


Do you really think that's what the GP was implying?

The GP's comment reads like an illustration of an extreme position that may be used to shine light on another extreme position. It may not be an accurate reflection of the person's ideals.

GP said "also"; I think you're both arguing the same point.

That's a bit of a jump in inference. The GP was talking about expressing views contrary to the current narratives....

What are your thoughts on the rest of the GP comment?

I think the GP was being sarcastic

You're in agreement with the GP, their comment was just hard to parse.

Which is exactly the point the GP was making, I think.

That's not at all what the GP was saying.

That's ... literally what the GP comment was about.

I believe the GP was being ironic. Since, without insider information, your "accuracy" claim seems like jaded opinion.

How does this relate to the GP comment?
next

Legal | privacy