My comment was an appropriate use of derision given the extremist nature of the original argument. Advocating for the elimination of humanity is a dangerous fringe view that contradicts fundamental moral values. Treating it with intellectual seriousness would legitimize an abhorrent position.
Suggesting OP volunteer to go first, I exposed the glaring ethical contradiction in their argument. If they truly believe in eliminating humanity, logically they should be willing to start with themselves.
In extreme cases involving manifestly unethical ideas, derision is justified to decisively reject the premise, highlight its incoherence, and affirm community values. Engaging respectfully would be counterproductive by dignifying an view that deserves no respect.
The question at its core is a whataboutism and I don't have time for those. It doesn't change the core tenet of the point being made, which is that this prevents publishers from monetizing something they tend to charge money for.
And given that most publishers are small and just scraping by and this directly harms them, I think that sucks.
Stop free-riding on absolutely everyone like they're a Hollywood studio.
I know HN is not the most tactful place all of the time, but that second question strikes me as unusually cruel to pose to the parent of a recently deceased son.
If you look at AlexeyBelov's other comments, it's clear he is trying to create conflict wherever, whenever, and however he can. He wants to get people shouting. I would just ignore him.
Yikes is a pretty bad response thought, let's be honest. It's passing judgement without an explanation. And if you follow it up with an explanation you can just remove the "yikes" part and your post instantly becomes so much better.
reply