"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
I respect that. I would argue though that this definitely is "something interesting" to discuss. I find it fascinating that the author clearly called out the illegality yet thinks it okay to do anyway, and even more interesting that they project that mindset onto others by assuming we would all do the same. But I felt my one-word answer did more to encompass my thoughts then a paragraph would have.
Dang, in general this is a good guideline that you enforce.
In this particular article, though, I think the OP's comment is relevant. "Gross" sums up pretty much how many of us feel about the quoted assertion and the overall tone of the article.
Let's put it another way. Think about an hypothetical article relevant to HN (say, something about how you can "hack" a human's response to suggestions using pheromones or whatnot) analyzing how a famous rapist used these techniques, and included the statement "Was this person a rapist? Yes. But wouldn't most of us want to use these techniques on women? Sure!".
Wouldn't it be appropriate to call such a statement gross, and wouldn't it also overshadow the rest of the article?
The parallel is poor because one of these things is so much more provocative than the other you that you can't meaningfully compare the responses as analogous. The sane thing to do with an article approvingly invoking nonconsensual sexual abuse to make an unrelated point is to flag it and if it doesn't die, send the moderators an email so they can squish it.
sums up pretty much how many of us feel
The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them.
Here's an even better parallel: it's gross to dream of having the business acumen of successful drug lords or mobsters. They may excel at what they do, but still, saying "who hasn't dreamt of making lots of money like they did?" would be gross.
> The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them.
You lost me. Lots of words with little relation to anything I said.
I think I explained how it's quite inapt and your response is 'it's apt'. If you think 'please don't type reflexive one word comments into HN' has 'some hypothetical about rape' as a response worth talking about, we're best off leaving things here.
Both are scummy behaviors aimed at "hacking"/exploiting the human psyche for ill intents. And, in any case, I provided an even more apt comparison in the followup comment: drug lords and mobsters. Or scam artists of any kind. Such an article wouldn't be flagged on HN if it explains something technical or about the human psyche; but it's ok to respond "gross" if it contains a sentence such as the one which sparked this conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html