4 ms·

I find it interesting that one commenter glibly pronounces that Donald Trump has "Russian collaborators" - ostensibly for nefarious purposes - even though, with

I find it interesting that one commenter glibly pronounces that Donald Trump has "Russian collaborators" - ostensibly for nefarious purposes - even though, with nearly a year of investigation, I'm not made aware of conclusive proof of such collaboration. More interesting is the article itself, which I might summarise as: an eyecatching headline (which is of course the one thing all readers will see), 98% of the text being some historical context concerning one of Oscar Wilde's plays, and then the last few sentences straining to relate the headline with the article and the headlines of other modern articles--on supposed "Russia collusion". Though the effort, this time, - given the headline and closing remarks - seems quite clearly to suggest that 'this whole Russia collusion thing might not be so bad after all'. Most interesting is how this article has been cobbled together and published within just a few days of the reemerging Uranium One scandal, this time, suggesting collusion between none other than the past Democrat presidential candidate and Russia: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncov... Though I've been "very" surprised at the lack of attention this got from many major American media corporations, at least on the first day of its release. Some outlets other than The Hill covered it - Breitbart, Fox News, and perhaps more ("names that shall not be mentioned") - but Reddit, for example, had quite a lot of nothing to say about the matter, at least on the most visible portions of the site. I suppose some prefer to speak of "Oscar Wilde's collusion with Russians" instead of other, important matters.

Brakenshire 9y ago
This is so paranoid as to be absurd. Your contention is that an article in an obscure literary magazine about an author from 100 years ago is to be used as a means of distraction about this scandal? This article stands approximately zero chance of diverting the news cycle in the least way, and its 'collution is not a bad thing' line as you describe it has no relevance to Clinton, because it's explicitly about the powerless, not the powerful. Fair point about the other commenter glibly talking about Russian collaborators, might I suggest a concise reply to their comment?
- ignoramceisblis 9y ago
  > This is so paranoid as to be absurd. Your contention is that an article in an obscure literary magazine about an author from 100 years ago is to be used as a means of distraction about this scandal? This article stands approximately zero chance of diverting the news cycle in the least way, and its 'collution is not a bad thing' line as you describe it has no relevance to Clinton, because it's explicitly about the powerless, not the powerful. My contention is nothing of the sort. I do not believe this article could be or was intended to be a distraction or diversion. I'm also unsure of how you extrapolated that. It is, as you say, an obscure literary magazine. The main relevant takeaway is that I believe a significant portion of the readers of this article - or just the headline - could walk away with the association of 'collusion with Russia might not be so bad'. That's it. You could add the parameter for "power", as you describe, but I believe enough of the reader population will abstract that away, and simply recall the simpler association. I also provide context on why this association may be more valuable to have, for certain parties. What I think you could say is "absurd" is how my original comment consisting of: a correction to another user's comment, my summary of the article, and relevant points of context has been treated. It appears at the bottom of the page, below a comment with the full content being "Yawn, this is really getting old and tiring, I didn't really there were so many bigots on hn.", with text slightly darker than the near-white text of that comment, and mine is the only comment that is hidden or collapsed by default. I'm unsure of how Hacker News text shading and comment visibility is set, but are my statements not relevant to the article at hand? I was here for meaningful discussion. (For that last question, Brakenshire, I don't expect you to reply.)

Brakenshire 9y ago

This is so paranoid as to be absurd. Your contention is that an article in an obscure literary magazine about an author from 100 years ago is to be used as a means of distraction about this scandal? This article stands approximately zero chance of diverting the news cycle in the least way, and its 'collution is not a bad thing' line as you describe it has no relevance to Clinton, because it's explicitly about the powerless, not the powerful. Fair point about the other commenter glibly talking about Russian collaborators, might I suggest a concise reply to their comment?

ignoramceisblis 9y ago
> This is so paranoid as to be absurd. Your contention is that an article in an obscure literary magazine about an author from 100 years ago is to be used as a means of distraction about this scandal? This article stands approximately zero chance of diverting the news cycle in the least way, and its 'collution is not a bad thing' line as you describe it has no relevance to Clinton, because it's explicitly about the powerless, not the powerful. My contention is nothing of the sort. I do not believe this article could be or was intended to be a distraction or diversion. I'm also unsure of how you extrapolated that. It is, as you say, an obscure literary magazine. The main relevant takeaway is that I believe a significant portion of the readers of this article - or just the headline - could walk away with the association of 'collusion with Russia might not be so bad'. That's it. You could add the parameter for "power", as you describe, but I believe enough of the reader population will abstract that away, and simply recall the simpler association. I also provide context on why this association may be more valuable to have, for certain parties. What I think you could say is "absurd" is how my original comment consisting of: a correction to another user's comment, my summary of the article, and relevant points of context has been treated. It appears at the bottom of the page, below a comment with the full content being "Yawn, this is really getting old and tiring, I didn't really there were so many bigots on hn.", with text slightly darker than the near-white text of that comment, and mine is the only comment that is hidden or collapsed by default. I'm unsure of how Hacker News text shading and comment visibility is set, but are my statements not relevant to the article at hand? I was here for meaningful discussion. (For that last question, Brakenshire, I don't expect you to reply.)