4 ms·

>This was flagged and dead and should be again. Strange. It almost sounds like you're afraid of this article for some reason? And I'm saying that as someone w

by Jimmy 10y ago

>This was flagged and dead and should be again. Strange. It almost sounds like you're afraid of this article for some reason? And I'm saying that as someone who abhors Trump and is trying to get everyone I know to vote for Hillary. I just hate double standards is all.

geofft 10y ago
Not 'themartona, but, I'm afraid of this article. I'm afraid that we're not able to discuss interesting technical issues without the overtone of this presidential election's good-vs.-evil campaign (and both sides see themselves as good and the other as evil). We couldn't even have a rational discussion about a secretary of state not being able to use a mobile device with official email. It quickly became a discussion about the evil, corrupt secretary of state killing innocent ambassadors by using a private email server. Every interesting technical issue - and, in fact, every interesting political issue, about how the most powerful government in the world can't provide useful email services to its secretary of state, and how we got there - was drowned out by the good-vs.-evil talk. I'm afraid that comments about the candidates instead of the technical issues will dominate. I can't even come up with a more silly example than the present one: something happened to Trump but not Clinton, or Clinton but not Trump, and with no evidence that this is about the candidates, it must be that one of them is evil and silencing dissent or paying off Apple or something. I'm afraid that the tenor of us-vs.-them, good-vs.-evil arguments from the rest of the internet is infecting HN. I'm afraid that well-reasoned criticism of the political candidates is getting ignored just because so much of it is ill-reasoned. If we expect every single article to have paragraphs of "BTW Hillary sux" or "BTW Donald sux", how do we expect to have actual, serious discussions of where the candidates are good or bad. I'm afraid that articles like this are becoming normal. Yes, I'm afraid of this article.

by Jimmy 10y ago

geofft 10y ago

Not 'themartona, but, I'm afraid of this article. I'm afraid that we're not able to discuss interesting technical issues without the overtone of this presidential election's good-vs.-evil campaign (and both sides see themselves as good and the other as evil). We couldn't even have a rational discussion about a secretary of state not being able to use a mobile device with official email. It quickly became a discussion about the evil, corrupt secretary of state killing innocent ambassadors by using a private email server. Every interesting technical issue - and, in fact, every interesting political issue, about how the most powerful government in the world can't provide useful email services to its secretary of state, and how we got there - was drowned out by the good-vs.-evil talk. I'm afraid that comments about the candidates instead of the technical issues will dominate. I can't even come up with a more silly example than the present one: something happened to Trump but not Clinton, or Clinton but not Trump, and with no evidence that this is about the candidates, it must be that one of them is evil and silencing dissent or paying off Apple or something. I'm afraid that the tenor of us-vs.-them, good-vs.-evil arguments from the rest of the internet is infecting HN. I'm afraid that well-reasoned criticism of the political candidates is getting ignored just because so much of it is ill-reasoned. If we expect every single article to have paragraphs of "BTW Hillary sux" or "BTW Donald sux", how do we expect to have actual, serious discussions of where the candidates are good or bad. I'm afraid that articles like this are becoming normal. Yes, I'm afraid of this article.