3 ms·
> 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
by 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.)