4 ms·

What exactly are you trying to say? This post is nothing but empty snark. For example, are you trying to say that Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign nation?

glangdale 8y ago
Both you and GP are overly in love with HN's prohibition of snark, to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky. Frankly, I think HN's official stance on snark is regrettable - the net effect is that, no matter how absurd or obnoxious the proposition, we need to shift the Overton Window by acting as if the proposition is worthy of Serious Discussion. I think we've crossed that line a while ago, when GP asserted that we'd just have to go ahead with Apple and Google having "Kaffir Manager" on the app store because that would have been OK with South Africa at one point - these being companies that regularly exercise judgement way beyond the strict letter of local law (e.g. banning adult content that would be legal with age-verification in most countries). In this case, it (the prospect that the Peace of Westphalia needs to be invoked to explain app store approvals) is not really worthy of serious discussion. Anyone who has, I dunno, read a newspaper semi-regularly at any time would find the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow applies to 'influence' within other countries absurd on the face of it (such influence has been incredibly common since WWII) and to particularly apply this starchy and ahistoric interpretation to Saudi Arabia - not exactly noted for its own policies of non-interference, to say the least - is doubly absurd. You and GP may have noticed at some point that the discussion was about Apple and Google choosing to allow an app, not whether the USA should invade the KSA and free the women, but apparently bringing the Peace of Westphalia and a discussion of sovereignty into it was a temptation that was overwhelming.
- pvg 8y ago
  you don't seem to be able to read any meaning The GP comment (about the Peace of Westphalia) is bananas and the dementors might be a little uptight when it comes 'snark' but you're way past snark - 'lol, reading comprehension much' is not snark it's just crappy namecalling. You should edit it out.
  - glangdale 8y ago
    I am not overly convinced that paraphasing what I said to be way snarkier than it is, then referring to it as "crappy namecalling" is entirely valid. You have even truncated my original quote to make it seem snarkier: "to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky" -> "you don't seem to be able to read any meaning" What I find tiresome is the overuse of the word 'snark' on HN to mean 'you disagreed with me but didn't show my arguments the hushed reverence of the drawing room'. As a result, every conversation at HN rapidly silts up with people straight-facedly raising disingenuous absurdities. We didn't quite make it to the Nazis, but seriously? "Apartheid-era South Africa should have been left alone because something something Westphalia." You are exactly right: the comment is bananas. It is past due that it should be allowed to call a comment 'bananas' on HN without people crying out for teacher to come Save Them From The Snark.
    - pvg 8y ago
      I'm not a huge fan of snark as a stand-in for everything non-bland either. But that's beside the point, when you start telling people how they are incapable of reading or absorbing your great insight (which is basically what both of your responding comments say), you're past snark and into snarl.

glangdale 8y ago

Both you and GP are overly in love with HN's prohibition of snark, to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky. Frankly, I think HN's official stance on snark is regrettable - the net effect is that, no matter how absurd or obnoxious the proposition, we need to shift the Overton Window by acting as if the proposition is worthy of Serious Discussion. I think we've crossed that line a while ago, when GP asserted that we'd just have to go ahead with Apple and Google having "Kaffir Manager" on the app store because that would have been OK with South Africa at one point - these being companies that regularly exercise judgement way beyond the strict letter of local law (e.g. banning adult content that would be legal with age-verification in most countries). In this case, it (the prospect that the Peace of Westphalia needs to be invoked to explain app store approvals) is not really worthy of serious discussion. Anyone who has, I dunno, read a newspaper semi-regularly at any time would find the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow applies to 'influence' within other countries absurd on the face of it (such influence has been incredibly common since WWII) and to particularly apply this starchy and ahistoric interpretation to Saudi Arabia - not exactly noted for its own policies of non-interference, to say the least - is doubly absurd. You and GP may have noticed at some point that the discussion was about Apple and Google choosing to allow an app, not whether the USA should invade the KSA and free the women, but apparently bringing the Peace of Westphalia and a discussion of sovereignty into it was a temptation that was overwhelming.

pvg 8y ago
you don't seem to be able to read any meaning The GP comment (about the Peace of Westphalia) is bananas and the dementors might be a little uptight when it comes 'snark' but you're way past snark - 'lol, reading comprehension much' is not snark it's just crappy namecalling. You should edit it out.
- glangdale 8y ago
  I am not overly convinced that paraphasing what I said to be way snarkier than it is, then referring to it as "crappy namecalling" is entirely valid. You have even truncated my original quote to make it seem snarkier: "to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky" -> "you don't seem to be able to read any meaning" What I find tiresome is the overuse of the word 'snark' on HN to mean 'you disagreed with me but didn't show my arguments the hushed reverence of the drawing room'. As a result, every conversation at HN rapidly silts up with people straight-facedly raising disingenuous absurdities. We didn't quite make it to the Nazis, but seriously? "Apartheid-era South Africa should have been left alone because something something Westphalia." You are exactly right: the comment is bananas. It is past due that it should be allowed to call a comment 'bananas' on HN without people crying out for teacher to come Save Them From The Snark.
  - pvg 8y ago
    I'm not a huge fan of snark as a stand-in for everything non-bland either. But that's beside the point, when you start telling people how they are incapable of reading or absorbing your great insight (which is basically what both of your responding comments say), you're past snark and into snarl.