Comment by mannykannot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mannykannot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So now you have finally come to realize that you need to explain how you arrived at your allegation, and let's recall what that was:

> What I’m reading here is “you’re wrong and lying or lied to because of an ‘agenda’” and that’s it.

Where "you're" means GP, i.e. Bermion, the person to whom I was replying. So where did you get the notion that I was saying these things about Bermion? From your latest post, it appears that you think that in the statement "capitalism is not the simple proposition that profit justifies anything, even if some people sometimes suggest that it is...", the "some people" must refer to Bermion, but that does not follow, and Bermion is not even a particularly good fit, having not said anything so simplistic.

In fact, it is referring to a group of people tacitly referred to in Bermion's comment - those who go along with the view that "in a way, this is the 'right' thing to do in a capitalist society", a group in which Bermion clearly does not belong. It is not uncommon to find people implying, and even saying outright, that capitalism is just the proposition that profit justifies anything (sometimes, for example, in the guise of the claim that a board's only duty is to maximize profits by whatever works), and when it is being claimed by someone who knows better, in the hope of influencing other people in a way that benefits the claimant in some way, then that is duplicitous (which is not a synonym for lying, even though it may involve it.)

Next time you are thinking of making a wild allegation, do yourself a favor and check beforehand whether you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

whether or not your accusation directly refers to GP is irrelevant

if you read your own quote, it says “lying or lied to”. I included the “lied to” because I knew you would try and sneak out of it like this, and yet you did it anyway because you appear to emotionally struggle with light criticism and questions, never mind justifying your thoughts

normal people, people who aren’t embarrassed and afraid to defend their thoughts, don’t get angry and bluster and start on about unhingedness and ‘I’ve written so many articles’ and all these quite amusing attempts at condescension and outrage. they just defend their thoughts. they say what agenda they’re referring to. they say who is lying. they don’t get angry that a person asking them questions didn’t accept their pre-emptive excuse

you’re still accusing people who disagree with you of dishonestly pushing an agenda. you’re still accusing people of lying. and you still refuse to justify those accusations. just because you made who you were accusing slightly fuzzy doesn’t mean you automatically get away with anything

> Whether or not your accusation directly refers to GP is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is of the essence, as you posed your accusation explicitly as me accusing GP of being wrong and lying or being lied to ("what I’m reading here is “you’re wrong and lying or lied to because of an ‘agenda’” and that’s it") - which raises the question of what position you think GP holds, and how you came about that knowledge.

> I included the “lied to” because I knew you would try and sneak out of it like this...

As you wrote this in the first line of your first post, in the middle of your accusation, this just demonstrates that you have been acting in bad faith from the beginning, uninterested in finding out what my actual position is. This will be of little surprise to anyone who has followed the conversation, or just picked up on the tone of your first reply.

It is also completely unclear what you think you are proving here. As I explained in my previous post, your accusation is not wrong on a technicality; it is fundamentally mistaken about where, and about what, I think someone would be lying (hint - it's not GP, as far as I know - but you should know that already from my previous post.)

> Normal people...

Normal people do not like wild, personal and unjustified accusations followed by badgering questions predicated on the false propositions of the accusation, and they are not keen on the people who make them, either.

Your final paragraph shows that you have not learned anything from my previous post, which is probably not surprising, now that you have revealed your intent to trap me on a technicality rather than find out what I am actually saying.

Despite your plethora of deeply hypocritical accusations, I’m going to cut this down to the central tenet

Who are you accusing?

What are you accusing them of?

Why do you think they’re being dishonest?

Next time you say something, remember to be confident it makes sense, or you’ll have to go through your politician’s poor-faith smugly-avoiding-the-question-manual all over again when someone asks you to—shock of all preposterously unhinged shocks—actually explain yourself when you make a controversial claim

So, having nothing to say in response [1], you fall back on badgering again. That isn't going to work any better than it did before, except to reinforce the impression you have already made.

[1] Except for a presumably unintended but rather accurate self-portrait.

one day you’ll have to deal with a person like you, and you’ll remember this and have to sit down and ask yourself some difficult questions

Here, I have met a person who immediately attacks with a personal allegation ("what I’m reading here is “you’re wrong and lying or lied to because of an ‘agenda’” and that’s it"), does so in bad faith ("I included the “lied to” because I knew you would try and sneak out of it like this"), and who repeatedly resorts to badgering me with questions. If this sort of behavior was directed towards someone unprepared for it, it would count as bullying, and I have no difficult questions arising from my responses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com