Other then the term "shitposts" what's wrong with that statement? They did make updates to give him and only him a broader reach and more views. The only reason I say "shitposts" may be an issue with the statement is because I don't feel like seeing if there's a definition for shitposts and if there is cross referencing it with the last couple months of his posts.
I agree with you: "rubbish" is the same as "bullshit". It's still saying "what you've said is worthless".
I don't have a problem with it, but it is the same semantics as what started this whole issue - though he does expand into a list of reasons (which isn't possible on twitter).
He is not an exclusionary person, and labeling him as such, based on an impulsive reaction to an abstract word, with multiple contextual interpretations, is a misguided interpretation of recent events.
His frustration at irrational demands for unnecessary effort is understandable.
I have to say that Brians recent posts seem a little pissy and childish in his wordings. He also stated facts that are untrue such as that most of Lulzsec are in jail...currently most of them are out and never served much time.
What has reddit got to do with the issue? He also made it clear that the right move was to rename, but that he's now refusing to do so out of spite - i.e. an escalation to the drama.
> is simply projection
oh, cool, now you are insulting me. So why am I childish?
He also retweeting someone saying they would poop on laptop if the Code of Conduct was removed. This was used as an argument that he was happy he upset people, rather than the obvious pointing out the insanity of the people arguing against him.
He posted that on X, the ex-Twitter, where that kind of behavior is entirely appropriate (for better or worse). You posted it here, where that behavior is not appropriate. If you really want to engage in childish snark, there are lots of sites that welcome it.
I don't think he succeeded in starting any kind of conversation. He just sort of screamed vehemently at the internet, eliciting what appears to be a general backlash from HN.
Writing a blog post comprised heavily of expletives that most people immediately reject is not really promoting a discourse.
<sigh> It was linked with the word "amoral". Amoral is not an illness, it is a personal flaw.
It's his blog. He is allowed to call the guy a retard if he wants. I, on the other hand, don't have to like it, and it seriously detracted from selling me his POV. Just saying.
Really? You think that that change would make him likeable?
> Do try and use the brain God gave you.
Sorry, but I don't understand the purpose of that snarky comment. Do you disagree that the kind of post in the example I gave is why people are mean to him? It makes not a jot of difference that you "fixed" his post here (for whose benefit, I don't know), because he posts what he posts, and people read what he posts, and make their judgements based on that.
Yup - I commented on Chris' post and he responded saying "I'm starting to regret the title I used on this post (versus the more accurate first sentence)."
reply