3 ms·
Huh? What about that comment was condescending? Do you not interpret this as a very important moment in South Korea's democracy?
by debaserab2 10y ago
Huh? What about that comment was condescending? Do you not interpret this as a very important moment in South Korea's democracy?
- sdfgre435 10y agoI think he was saying that too many comments on HN begin with telling the readers how significant this thing is. It can come off as telling people how to feel about something rather than letting them interpret. But it really is the beginning of way too many top comments. I bet you'll see it everywhere now that you know to look. Your comment sounds like a BuzzFeed article, not actual analysis.
- colinplamondon 10y agoMan, that's the entire reason I read /r/worldnews. A ton of people compete to have the best recap on why something is relevant, and the best rises to the top. Like, the point of comments is people putting out their opinions. In the process some people post who are more informed, and others less. Give it a few hours, and you can skim the top comments, and get a damned decent read on a situation. If someone didn't want someone else to interpret an article, why'd they even bother reading comments?
- jdjebc82747 10y agoExecutive summaries (aka summaries without statements by uninformed / non-inside sources)? Statements of other facts or viewpoints that weren't considered? Laying out the logical argument as to why this has an impact on the future of SK versus just stating they think it's significant? Lots of reasons?
- debaserab2 10y agoThe commenter pretty clearly laid out why he thought it was significant: "It's exercised for the first time a part of the legal system that's never been explored in the country." ...that seems pretty important to me.
- dang 10y agoReplying with sockpuppets will get both accounts banned, so please don't do that.