3 ms·
I was just writing a defense of your thoughtful, nuanced comment, about how preposterous it was to downvote it when the parent, which contains nothing but ra-ra
by gruseom 17y ago
I was just writing a defense of your thoughtful, nuanced comment, about how preposterous it was to downvote it when the parent, which contains nothing but ra-ra-team ideology, was sitting at +6. But then I noticed the charming addendum you put at the end. Come on Andrew, please don't do that. Not only does it violate the rules and spirit of the site, it undermines everything you wrote. In fact it totally spoils it (and changes the subject into a big distraction).
Edit: PG said he didn't want to let HN go down without a fight. It's our reponsibility to fight for it too. You've been around here for a long time and made many valuable contributions (definitely including this one, if that noxious bit were excised; there are so few comments on Venezuela that aren't 100% determined by ideological agenda).
- davidw 17y agoPart of that fight should be flagging articles like this that are basically about politics. Look at the discussion it has generated:-/
- gruseom 17y agoYou pick a bad example. Andrew's comment was unusually thoughtful until the end bit, it was the end bit which derailed the thread, and the end bit has nothing to do with politics.
- davidw 17y agoI picked a great example: > the "western model" isn't that great either and > classic socialist play How much more shallow can you get in your analysis than pithy comments like those? Both of them are flame bait for various people and ultimately don't seem to produce productive discourse.