HN Explorer

9 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 26.6 ms ] thread
creaghpatr
The spirit of the article isn't wrong, but The Verge is starting to pull this rhetorical trick a little too frequently.

In this case, they take an otherwise defendable belief (censorship kills) and make clear the unsavory company you will find yourself in, should you choose to go public with this belief.

mark_edward
If you always find yourself liking things mostly unsavory people like, maybe you should think about that thing.
vokep
Indeed. Most people I've talked to who have such views think quite a lot about that because it makes them uncomfortable. Myself included.
erric
Your definition of unsavory is likely different then someone else’s.

I like whisky. I presume people who fit your definition of unsavory do as well. Should I re-evaluate my appreciation of whisky?

creaghpatr
Exactly, you'll commit a ton of unforced Type 1 errors.
OscarCunningham
Is that really a good heuristic? It doesn't seem like people's morality should correlate with their factual correctness.

EDIT: At least after controlling for IQ.

coldtea
That way dictatorship lies...
rhcom2
The article touches on the reasonable discussion with the paragraph that begins... "Many people are legitimately discussing the issues that allegedly motivated Aghdam."
[dead] wagecuck
some decent people too