[grzm]

Personally, I was having a bit of fun. I thought about deleting it because it was too light-hearted and non-substantive, not because I thought I was being snarky. I understood his response in the same vein. (And where did all this "signaling" language come from? I must not be reading the right forums.)

[mikeash]

I assume they meant to say virtue signaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

In short, it implies that we're not sincere when we make fun of far-out conspiracy theories, but rather that we're only doing it to enhance our social standing.

[alphapapa]

I think you're quite sincere. :) But, yes, the virtual dogpiling is quite detestable. It's an ugly form of self-congratulatory virtual bullying, like any playground scene where a bunch of kids gang up on another, push him down, and start kicking him, then walk off, high-fiving each other, secure in their social status as demonstrated by their "correct" behavior. In principle, it's no different than this: https://youtu.be/C7zEibNcejA

And the double-standard is evident here, as in any other situation, such "unsubstantive" comments would bring down the chastisement of the mods and the community downvotes. But since the victim is not left-leaning, it's okay.

[mikeash]

Yeah, it's no different from what happened in that video, other than, you know, the complete lack of any violence or harm done to you.

There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.

If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.

[alphapapa]

> Yeah, it's no different from what happened in that video, other than, you know, the complete lack of any violence or harm done to you.

Did you notice the key words, "in principle," or did you selectively omit them? Do you understand the principle of ganging up on people whom you disagree with and cheering each other on as you do it? Do you really not grok this?

> There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.

"Actually funny," huh? "Not disruptive"? I guess I've been visiting a different "Hacker News" site, because the one I've been going to quickly downvotes and chastises even the mildest of humor buried deep in a subthread. I stand by the double-standard claim.

> If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.

Funny that you should accuse me of irrelevant claims when you have derailed the discussion multiple times with non-sequiturs of your own invention about extra-terrestrials.

You are not discussing in good faith. Let's end this discussion here. Good evening.

[mikeash]

I'll try once more, since you seem to have missed my point entirely.

I'm not sure if you got the "three million non-citizen voters" thing from Infowars or directly from Gregg Phillips.

If the former, then you're posting something from a conspiracy site whose other headlines include "ALIENS DO EXIST, SAYS TOP SECRET FBI MEMO" and "THE COMING STAGED ALIEN INVASION."

If the latter, then you're taking at face value something from some random person on twitter.

Either way, it has zero credibility. You're right that I'm not discussing in good faith, because I'm trying to point out how ridiculous your original claim was by doing the same thing back to you. The only difference between yours and mine is that I actually understand that mine is fake.