4 ms·
Yeah, that's on page 4 now, because people tend to flag political articles they disagree with now. I can't wait for the election to be over; hopefully sanity w
by labster 10y ago
Yeah, that's on page 4 now, because people tend to flag political articles they disagree with now. I can't wait for the election to be over; hopefully sanity will return to HN.
- tptacek 10y agoI agree with this article about as forcefully as I agree with anything, and I flagged it, because political appeals don't belong on HN. Either way: this is a duplicate, and should be killed or merged with the first post.
- labster 10y agoIt isn't really a political appeal, you know. It's an argument about effective processes. Which is what hackers do all day, look for the best process to solve a problem. I urge you, in the strongest terms, to click the [unflag] button now.
- tptacek 10y agoThis is the problem with political discussions on HN: we've all read the guideline that says "don't post political appeals to HN", and so we waste time rationalizing that our preferred political appeals are something other than politics --- often with some superficial veneer of engineering-speak. I've been here for a pretty long time, long enough to have seen the same tropes used to get Ron Paul's RE[LOVE]OLUTION on the front page. I'm not impressed. What makes this one worse is that it has Paul Graham's name on it. Naturally, half the site thinks that means it's pre-approved for HN. But no: just because he wrote it doesn't mean he thinks it merits a shitshow political thread on HN about it.
- unethical_ban 10y agoIt's clearly a debate based in philosophy and religion for many, as much as it's a "hacker's debate" on the efficacy of the death penalty. A submission framed as that kind of discussion would be one thing. This post is an appeal to support one of several political choices. Even as I agree with the principle of the matter, I find it odd that it's allowed on here, except PG posted it.