Item — HN Reader

It's a poorly written, pseudo-intellectual screed whining about their treatment after being held accountable for their actions, which they don't even get to until halfway through the article. There's a lot of empty name dropping, and no real apology or understanding about what they did wrong.

I was so disappointed in the article I looked up what this website was and learned that I shouldn't have even wasted my time reading it.

There's much better ways to write about the issue and lead a discussion than this article.

So instead of writing all that, I dropped the URL for others to decide if they wanted to wanted to bother reading it or not.

3 comments

I don’t see you engaging with the content.

You’ve written a longer comment, but I can see only three points:

1. You dislike the style and quality of the piece.

2. You are in full agreement that the authors is in fact guilty.

3. You don’t think people should read the piece.

Did I miss something?

See, that is the point being lamented in the original article. You claim the problem with the article is the lack of apology. This implies whoever accuses the author is right and the author is wrong. Which is true, I do not know. But the key and fundamental problem is that based on your belief of who is right, you deem the article not worth your time. This sentiment being widespread in the universities is the main thing being lamented in the original article.

I don't really understand what the author did wrong, which I think is why the HN guidelines promote discussion over link dropping. I would benefit from knowing what you found objectionable. Tangentially, I also don't find much value in media bias info, since it doesn't tend to actually address the substance of any given article.