> I sincerely hope that I never meet Sam Bankman Fried, because if I did I do not know what I would do but it certainly wouldn't be legal.
Why is this statement not condemned? Of course it's terrible that SBF was a fraud. But insinuating that physical harm is justified is just not ok. They were the naïve ones who bought into the BS, waived away all the warning voices, and now they are threating violence? Not ok.
No way in hell should it be the top comment. I can't find any victim blaming at all in a quick skim, so if it's here it's not by any means a plurality opinion. bitops is being even worse and reactionary than they claim HN to be.
It’s absolutely appalling. And especially so with so many comments suggesting the opposite of the things you quote. Seeing no harm by pretending the directly express harm was never expressed at all.
The first comment (as of right now) makes me sick to my stomach:
"Why are we providing a platform for families of terrorists to advocate against American national interests? They should have considered the consequences of targeting the United States and its citizens with violence before they walked down that path.
Our intelligence services and armed forces have done a commendable job keeping Americans safe. I thank them for their service, and for keeping my family safe.
I have no time or desire to listen to this sorry speech about human and civil rights from someone who did not stop his son from advocating violence."
top comments are like: yeah, we're poisoning kids, but where's the profit if we stop. Guys, you're the baddies. Try invoking Godwins' law on your words.
Here’s the thread, go ahead and tally the number of comments that are sympathetic vs unsympathetic to the hate-crime CEO, and compare that to the proportion of comments in this thread that are sympathetic/unsympathetic to the Florida whistleblower: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23007512
Kinda funny how HN commenters decide that certain people’s perspectives need to be “steelmanned” but not others’
I don't understand why the comments on the blog post are so hostile. Lots of people were calling for this person's head, when what they distributed is fairly tame.
If discussion here is anything to go by, that one comment is what everyone hates. I haven't seen even an allegation that the other comments were offensive in the same way yet. Even the article here makes it the centerpiece of their criticism.
And it's the one comment she says she didn't make.
I wonder if her lawyer has seen this story? Many of the comments here could be helpful in showing damages.
> Even here on HN there are comments trying to downplay the issue by portraying the victims as mostly wealthy or landlords, which are presumably acceptable victims to people who like these kind of narratives.
After skimming some of the comments here I'd even go so far as to say that it's the majority of the comments here.
Yet the person above didn't get arrested and tortured for that comment. Or for a wrong "like" on Facebook. I'm not exaggerating, it really happens every day.
Really, even in the comments of the thread the fact that so many people are hung up on that is absolutely baffling. Of all the awful stuff that is said in there, that's the comment they want to make?
> I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the fact that someone is capable of disparaging a human being who has passed away and is incapable of self-defence, or the fact that some people apparently agree with the diatribe as witnessed by the upvotes.
The parent article post is dead - it's been clearly demonstrated that this man has a great deal of people on the internet capable of defending him after death.
So far this thread is setting the record for deleted comments, as people who responded angrily realize it was a parody.
Perhaps the reason people reacted so violently is that they can imagine some reasonable arguments that sound like these. I.e. this is a case of people being made maddest by statements they worry might be true.
There's some comments that add literally no value. I've received comment replies on other sites saying things along the lines of "I want to kill you." At that point we're past freedom of speech, this is almost the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Why are so many of the commenters on this page acting as if they were personally attacked? Nowhere in the article are "fear responses" described as bad or unusual.
The knee-jerk hostility and lack of any sense of irony is quite telling.
Whats most frightening about this story is how folks react to it - reading the comments is definitely not one way to maintain faith in humanity. The unadulterated hatred which some feel is their right to express is just .. astounding ..
You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about the wrong others have done. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.
> I sincerely hope that I never meet Sam Bankman Fried, because if I did I do not know what I would do but it certainly wouldn't be legal.
Why is this statement not condemned? Of course it's terrible that SBF was a fraud. But insinuating that physical harm is justified is just not ok. They were the naïve ones who bought into the BS, waived away all the warning voices, and now they are threating violence? Not ok.
reply