Hacker News Reader

Comment by time_management | Hacker News Reader

I have no idea whether or not Obama will be a great president, though I suspect he will. What makes him unusual, if not earth-shaking, as far as successful politicians go, is that he seems to be a truly great human being. I'm not pol-bashing; I don't think most of them are bad people. I just don't think many of them are great people either.

Casual sex is an example of the crudeness and nastiness of the current era, and I cited it as such.

Bigotry is much less appropriate as an example of the Reagan-through-Bush-2 era's nastiness, because even though it's a lot more evil than casual sex, it's been a problem more or less throughout this country's history.

View on HN

You asked for reasons why you got downvoted, which is what you got. Your reasons for posting those were fairly clear, the issue is that people disagree with you.

I certainly don't see casual sex as being an example of "nastiness" or "evil", and it may be that this is what most downvoters are taking offense to.

Plus, it's off-topic. The article is about being rude, callous, and insensitive towards others. Specifically, about the hypocrisy and cowardice involved in doing so anonymously. Your post was both off-topic and (potentially) offensive, and as such you're getting hit with two different sticks.

While I don't agree with all his opinions, it is definitely not off topic. Plus, he should not be downvoted because he thinks casual sex is emotionally destructive. That, in fact, ties into his broader point. He thinks Obama will ease the polarization that leads to so many vehement disagreements, which he thinks bleed over to the online world. This goes hand in hand with the other poster's highly upvoted comment about PCness breeding repressed anger that is expressed online, of which the downvoting due to offense is a symptom.

He thinks Obama will ease the polarization that leads to so many vehement disagreements, which he thinks bleed over to the online world.

I think a lot of the nastiness will fade away, and we'll have a lot more pragmatic disagreements, and fewer mean-spirited, petty ones.

Disagreement over bailout plans and solutions to economic problems is healthy. Impeaching a president over personal behavior (as caddish and comdemnable as that personal behavior was) is not good for the country.

> I think a lot of the nastiness will fade away

Why? Will the folks who hated Bush become nice? Will the folks who supported him become nice?

Are you arguing that Obama's election obligates his opponents to behave differently than Bush's elections obligated his opponents?

What goes around, comes around. Reap and sow.

Casual sex is an example of the crudeness and nastiness of the current era

Have sex with friendlier girls.

Seriously though how is that an example of it?

Hookup-style casual sex is the ruination of unwilling participants' future romantic partners... unless you like dropping pens in coffee mugs.

Ok, that comment was crass and bitter... but seriously: I don't think anyone should have sex with a partner who doesn't put the other person's emotional well-being at the same level of concern as his or her own.

Our society encourages freedom of choice. That's a bad thing?

I don't drink, don't party, most likely will never like casual sex. But I know people who do, and they like it well enough.

I upvoted you here, since you're not being inflammatory and you're contributing to a discussion, but I also think you're wrong. Society is changing. Social attitudes towards sex never stay the same from generation to generation. It's each individual's choice to participate, though, and that individual freedom matters.

At a certain point, free choice is unmaintainable. People obviously have to be self controlled in their personal lives. Since our personal lives affect each other, the need for self control must extend to the society as well.

How is free choice unmaintainable? There are people of both genders who like casual sex. Am I missing something?

Even people who enjoy casual sex don't enjoy a history of casual sex in previous partners, and those who don't enjoy or do it disapprove even more. No one wants his or her kids to have a parent who slutted it up during college.

I'm all for "free love", so long as it's actually love and not lust or something worse.

> Even people who enjoy casual sex don't enjoy a history of casual sex in previous partners

I learned a long time ago to not tell other people what they enjoyed, wanted, etc.

Casual sex is disastrous for society. You are at a high enough social strata where you are not affected, but it has decimated the inner cities. time_management wrote an excellent comment describing how monogamous relationships are key for civilization:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=457614

> I don't think anyone should have sex with a partner who doesn't put the other person's emotional well-being at the same level of concern as his or her own.

(1) What does that have to do with casual sex?

(2) Why do you think that that is new?

and people call me a troll. :-p

casual sex is awesome. although it does get old. but even then it's awesome. I'd rather have casual sex than a meaningful cheeseburger.

The lumping of casual sex in with the other things is a bit much. It doesn't make sense and comes across as a moral judgement that you're making on other people that aren't out to hurt someone.

> What makes [Obama] unusual, if not earth-shaking, as far as successful politicians go, is that he seems to be a truly great human being.

Obama's being a great human being can't possibly have the effects that you're predicting. That's not to say that he's bad. (Although the evidence for "great" is lacking.) Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick couldn't do those things.

That leaves us with a choice between "fanboy", "confused", and "troll".[1]

Which of them is a reason to upvoting your comments?

Me - I'm going with fanboy because I like to think the best of others.

[1] Your extended comments about casual sex confirm that those are the likely possibilities. In other news, nothing that you cited as "80s and later" actually started or even changed then. Digital watches are cool, but people haven't changed.

Obama's being a great human being can't possibly have the effects that you're predicting.

I think an inspirational leader like Kennedy or Obama can inspire people greatly to better themselves, and this inspiration has all sorts of ripple effects. A mustard seed, if you will. Finally we have a president whom, if I had kids, I would consider to be a decent role model for them to aspire to be like.

> I think an inspirational leader like Kennedy or Obama can inspire people greatly to better themselves, and this inspiration has all sorts of ripple effects.

I'm willing to believe that you do think that. One of my points is that it doesn't actually happen. (Another is that your "since 1980s" claims are completely wrong.) Self-delusion is one of the most important human impulses and I'm not suggesting that you should change yours.

You do know that the 100th monkey story was just that, a story, right? That thing about Tinkerbelle also doesn't happen.

I'd say heads of state affect people. Look at how divisive people in America are because so many don't like Bush. Think that kind of tension doesn't affect people's aspirations and motivation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com