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.
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."
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.
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.
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.