"The main upside to all this for me anyway is middle aged to old men like me have giant cocks compared to 20-somethings because we weren’t exposed to this shit in the womb. Of course most of the 20-something year old American women are obese and mentally ill anyway, so it’s a wash."
How do you appropriately comment on something like this? Other than to point out that this is not someone worth having a conversation with? And yet this blog hits the front page,and therefore requires engagement of some sort. Pretending, against all evidence, that you are engaged in a good faith, curiosity driven conversation when faced with stuff like this does not seem like an appropriate, rational strategy to me.
> And yet this blog hits the front page,and therefore requires engagement of some sort.
It really doesn't. If someone's writing bothers you, just move on with your life. I promise that railing against this dude will not stop him from blogging.
It's performative not informative. It's hyperbole written to evoke a reaction rather than to illuminate. So the HN guidelines for keeping things within the bounds of rational discourse are useless when engaging with it. Not engaging is of course an option, but yet, here we are. I replied to something, your replied to me. And I do feel that just letting irrational things stand when they already have gained some prominence is risky as well (c.f. covid vaccine).
Finally, yes I do find it offensive, and that does not hinge on it offending you. But it's also obviously irrelevant whether I find it offensive. There are plenty of people who take offence at gay marriage, or women driving, or blue hair. I'd rather have/debate general norms of civility than outsource the decision making on what's inappropriate or not to self appointed spokesperson of affected groups.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html