Hacker News
points by hexagonsuns 1 day ago | 0 comments
Your premise makes no sense. We’re talking about a top down tank game where the buildings don’t even resemble their real life counterparts here.

If you’re offended by this, maybe you should just not engage with it. Why does the onus fall on the creator?

Take a look at Battlefield. Should we take that down because it simulates war? Maybe we should remove guns from ever appearing in media because people have died from guns. Should we remove color from media because it may be insensitive to the colorblind? Why don’t we just remove all words everywhere because someone has had their feelings hurt by words. Where do we draw the line?

[–] latexr 1 day ago
> If you’re offended by this

I’m not offended by it. I am in fact very politely and cordially inviting the commenter above to consider a different perspective, and my approach to this subject in this entire thread has been one of compassion and curiosity, which is easily verifiable. I recommend doing that before launching on tirades of bad faith argumentation.

It’s been my observation that people who accuse others of being offended are themselves the most easily offended. Very much like the people who call others “snowflakes” have the thinnest skins themselves.

> maybe you should just not engage with it.

Despite it not being my case, those who are offended can and should very much still engage. Suggesting otherwise is nonsensical and a tool of those who promote hate. There is no societal progress if those who see something wrong do not speak up.

> (…) Should we take that down because it simulates war? (…)

I said in my comment that we already have thousands of games like that. I didn’t say that was bad. You are arguing in profound bad faith and are not even doing a good job of hiding your repeated straw men. I recommend you learn to engage with the arguments, instead of making up new ones in your head and fighting those.

[–] ThrowawayR2 1 day ago
> "my approach to this subject in this entire thread has been one of compassion and curiosity, which is easily verifiable."

You were lambasting the HN community with various pejoratives like "blowhards" and "putrid" in a comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50390997 ) in this thread 5 hours ago? There is no good faith interpretation for that I'm afraid.

[–] latexr 1 day ago
My words were (emphasis added) “and my approach to this subject”. The section you quoted from another post is very clearly labeled as an edit (i.e. not part of the original text) and is concerned with the meta subject of how HN as a community has in general been sharply devolving into hatred. It is entirely orthogonal to the subject of the thread.

Furthermore, good faith does not mean positive sentiment. It is perfectly congruent to lament in good faith the bad state of a community.

Perhaps consider that if I invited you to read previous comments, I was aware of what I’d written.

[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
You don’t understand, he’s got basic human empathy man
[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
Calling me out for “straw manning” by creating your own straw man is very cool.

You misunderstand the entire premise of my original comment, presumably on purpose. Oh well, I guess that’s just how online discourse is now.

[–] croniev 1 day ago
Sorry but I am genuinely bewildered by what you are writing. I urge you to take a step back and compare your tone and argumentation to that of the other commenter involved. Clearly your parent argument is blatant slippery slope argumentation and besides any point that anyone was making here. If you are too ideologically blinded to attempt to see concerns others are trying to express, even if still in a pre-articaulated manner, then please don't pretend like you have a meaningful contribution. We have enough bots in the internet spewing empty words as it is. Saying 'premise' in every comment does not make you smarter btw, just lazy.
[–] hexagonsuns 1 day ago
>blatant slippery slope argumentation

Why are you framing that as a bad thing? Pretending that “slippery slopes” aren’t worth talking about is insane

>too ideologically blinded to attempt to see concerns others are trying to express

Hello pot, meet kettle.

Premise. Perchance.