[pvg]

It's very much flamebait to go looking for some random shit someone did and then paste it into a thread context-free, which is what the commenter self-admittedly did. Going on about downvotes and how everybody else is a censorious sheep is definitely against the site guidelines so there's nothing particularly odd about that part.

[goes21551]

Referring to it as random shit is just yuck. There are lots of people who would like to know the positives and negatives of someone who died. This is a random message board, it's not like ’rgrieselhuber is going to the funeral page and commenting. So it's alright.

This guy supported him in 2009, 30 years after the act. Also, it's no secret RP did not stop his abuses after 1977.

It's literally a thread about Paul Auster, what more context do you need?

HN has a history of being cozy on abusers, supporters etc, which alienates a lot of smart people from participating. It's unfortunate that you chose to die on this hill.

[pvg]

"My thoughts and feelings about the art of X changed in Y ways when I learned about Z"

That's a comment in a conversation

"I went to the Wikipedia page of someone I hadn't heard of and pasted the first thing I saw in 'Controversies' into a thread"

That's a shitpost.

To take nothing from the art of shitposting, this is a random messageboard for conversations, not a random messageboard for shitposting.

[rgrieselhuber]

You conveniently ignore my directly adjacent post where I make it clear that I found this "controversy" while attempting to learn more about the author.

The other commenters made him sound interesting, so I wanted to see what his life was like and it turns out that he supported a pedophile. Seems relevant to me as I would want to know that about an author if I'm going to start reading their books.

Apparently these facts about him are just "random shit."

[pvg]

You conveniently ignore

I could say you conveniently ignore the fact your comment was downvoted and flagkilled by other users. And like the other commenter, I'm trying to tell you why that happens - it's not, as you seem to think, because those users are keen on supporting an abuser.

[rgrieselhuber]

Obviously I didn't ignore the fact that it was downvoted because I specifically mentioned it. I just don't derive my opinions from group consensus or magic internet points. I stand by what I wrote, for the reasons I explained.

I understand the argument you are attempting to make, I just don't buy it.

[ShamelessC]

Okay well let's just agree to disagree then.

[rgrieselhuber]

What would be the context of signing one's name to support something like Polanski that would make it excusable? It's not random shit I went looking for, I was educating myself on a writer I hadn't heard of and came across that action, which I find to be reprehensible.