4 ms·

What's flameable here? It's all factual and not the matter of dispute. And the point is that fixing symptoms won't help until the root of the problem is fixed.

by shmerl 8y ago

What's flameable here? It's all factual and not the matter of dispute. And the point is that fixing symptoms won't help until the root of the problem is fixed. And I'm not saying protesters are wrong or anything. It's just that the problem is a lot deeper.

dang 8y ago
It was far from "all factual", and clearly in dispute since someone immediately disputed it. If you post strong political claims using pejorative language like "disease", "dictatorship", and "disregarding the people" (which in fact is almost all of what you said), you're going to take threads like this further into flamewar whether you mean to or not. That's bad for thoughtful discussion and therefore off topic here. Most of us are living in contexts where our strongly held political/national views feel obvious and unobjectionable. But the minute you open up to a much broader context, such as a highly international forum like HN, it becomes painfully clear that this is not the case.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Who disputed it? The only ones who "dispute" the autocratic nature of power in Russia are government backed trolls. That's not considered dispute by any means. And trying to be neutral or "soft" about these kind of things ends up in whitewashing it. It sounds strong, because the problem is serious.
  - dang 8y ago
    The commenter who replied to you disputed it. Jumping to "government backed trolls" is exactly the mentality I was just trying to describe. That's just a form of assuming your conclusion, you have no evidence for saying it, and in fact it explicitly breaks the site guidelines to insinuate it. (Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.) The range of legit opinion is much wider than most people think. That has become very obvious to us, looking at the data left by millions of readers, voters, and commenters.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      > you have no evidence for saying it I have more than enough experience to know who commonly "disputes" this, and it's not anyone good. You can use this kind of "dispute" as a very clear indicator about those who do it. Opinions are applied to something subjective and they indeed can the the subject of dispute. Facts can't be replaced by them and disputing facts is rather strange to begin with.

by shmerl 8y ago

dang 8y ago

It was far from "all factual", and clearly in dispute since someone immediately disputed it. If you post strong political claims using pejorative language like "disease", "dictatorship", and "disregarding the people" (which in fact is almost all of what you said), you're going to take threads like this further into flamewar whether you mean to or not. That's bad for thoughtful discussion and therefore off topic here. Most of us are living in contexts where our strongly held political/national views feel obvious and unobjectionable. But the minute you open up to a much broader context, such as a highly international forum like HN, it becomes painfully clear that this is not the case.

shmerl 8y ago
Who disputed it? The only ones who "dispute" the autocratic nature of power in Russia are government backed trolls. That's not considered dispute by any means. And trying to be neutral or "soft" about these kind of things ends up in whitewashing it. It sounds strong, because the problem is serious.
- dang 8y ago
  The commenter who replied to you disputed it. Jumping to "government backed trolls" is exactly the mentality I was just trying to describe. That's just a form of assuming your conclusion, you have no evidence for saying it, and in fact it explicitly breaks the site guidelines to insinuate it. (Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.) The range of legit opinion is much wider than most people think. That has become very obvious to us, looking at the data left by millions of readers, voters, and commenters.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    > you have no evidence for saying it I have more than enough experience to know who commonly "disputes" this, and it's not anyone good. You can use this kind of "dispute" as a very clear indicator about those who do it. Opinions are applied to something subjective and they indeed can the the subject of dispute. Facts can't be replaced by them and disputing facts is rather strange to begin with.