6 ms·

So apparently this is deemed to be "some interesting new phenomenon" so that it does not violate the guidelines and stays "On-Topic". If Charlottesville posts

So apparently this is deemed to be "some interesting new phenomenon" so that it does not violate the guidelines and stays "On-Topic". If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed? I'm all for talking politics by the way.

peterwwillis 7y ago
The rules are only enforced in order to reduce flame wars. They're not strictly followed and generally speaking whatever the mods feel like goes.
- tzakrajs 7y ago
  Exactly. It’s not enough to say “oh we are trying to stop flame wars” when we are trying to talk about these topics to stop literal wars from occurring.
fawnzworth 7y ago
You know why :)
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed? Charlottesville was an internal protest of limited global consequence. This is the disassembly of a system of limited democracy and rule of law. It’s much more meaningful on a broader scale, and interesting as a result.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ohitsdom 7y ago
  I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences. Like what? Edit: no really, I'd like to know what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. I have absolutely no idea what foreign policy decisions "oshitsdom" is referring to, which have supposedly been influenced by a "rise of white nationalism". That would be a very serious event, and I genuinely want to know if there's some legitimate way of squinting at our shared reality which could give that impression. Edit 2 because I'm rate limited: This is not a rhetorical question, except that nobody has answered honestly. It is a question that is answerable. To form it more explicitly: "Name an example of a consequential foreign policy decision of the current administration which is white nationalist in nature (invokes a desire to create a state where citizenship is contingent on having white skin), and which has clearly been influenced the a cultural force of a 'rise of white nationalism'."
    - enraged_camel 7y ago
      >>As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. You are very wrong about the latter part. Trump's response to Charlottesville was so bad that the phrase "both sides" became a meme. To this day, he continues to downplay the problem.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        Sure, if you make every possible bad faith effort to misinterpret and obscure what somebody is saying, you'll come away with lots of spicy memes to share with your friends while you're busy agreeing with eachother. That doesn't so much mean you've made a sober assessment of the facts. Also that is not foreign policy.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        Trump saying that there were "good people on both sides" does not mean that he supports white nationalists, since not every group on the "unite the right" side was made of white nationalists. You can certainly argue that he does, but please come up with things that aren't quite so easily argued around. (and I've yet to hear an argument for how he's a Nazi when his favorite daughter is literally an Orthodox Jew) The more we allow easily refuted arguments to propagate unopposed, the easier it is to assume that there are no legitimate arguments for a position.
Leary 7y ago
Apparently posts are considered too political when several people flag them. There are no hard rules that actually apply.
- village-idiot 7y ago
  The difference between "politics" and "world events" typically comes down to the geography of the observer.
tzakrajs 7y ago
Because white nationalism is alive and strong even here.
challenger22 7y ago
Because China is emotionally distant enough from most HN commenters that it does not trigger a flame war.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
umadon 7y ago
HN like other social online spaces is not neutral or free from influence. For example I would imagine upvotes are trivial to astroturf. A quick search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=purchase+upvotes+hackernews&ia=social https://duckduckgo.com/?q=purchase+upvotes+hackernews&ia=soc...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 7y ago
Well for me, many technology companies do their best to do business in China. Apple, which loves to tell the world how much they support human rights, builds iPhones and other products in China regardless of how bad China's record is and more. Yeah, my latest soap box is, companies have no right to tell us how great their rights support is, human, privacy, or otherwise, if they continue to produce product in a country like China, which seems to be doubling down on suppression.

peterwwillis 7y ago

The rules are only enforced in order to reduce flame wars. They're not strictly followed and generally speaking whatever the mods feel like goes.

tzakrajs 7y ago
Exactly. It’s not enough to say “oh we are trying to stop flame wars” when we are trying to talk about these topics to stop literal wars from occurring.

fawnzworth 7y ago

You know why :)

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed? Charlottesville was an internal protest of limited global consequence. This is the disassembly of a system of limited democracy and rule of law. It’s much more meaningful on a broader scale, and interesting as a result.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ohitsdom 7y ago
I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences. Like what? Edit: no really, I'd like to know what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. I have absolutely no idea what foreign policy decisions "oshitsdom" is referring to, which have supposedly been influenced by a "rise of white nationalism". That would be a very serious event, and I genuinely want to know if there's some legitimate way of squinting at our shared reality which could give that impression. Edit 2 because I'm rate limited: This is not a rhetorical question, except that nobody has answered honestly. It is a question that is answerable. To form it more explicitly: "Name an example of a consequential foreign policy decision of the current administration which is white nationalist in nature (invokes a desire to create a state where citizenship is contingent on having white skin), and which has clearly been influenced the a cultural force of a 'rise of white nationalism'."
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    >>As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. You are very wrong about the latter part. Trump's response to Charlottesville was so bad that the phrase "both sides" became a meme. To this day, he continues to downplay the problem.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Sure, if you make every possible bad faith effort to misinterpret and obscure what somebody is saying, you'll come away with lots of spicy memes to share with your friends while you're busy agreeing with eachother. That doesn't so much mean you've made a sober assessment of the facts. Also that is not foreign policy.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Trump saying that there were "good people on both sides" does not mean that he supports white nationalists, since not every group on the "unite the right" side was made of white nationalists. You can certainly argue that he does, but please come up with things that aren't quite so easily argued around. (and I've yet to hear an argument for how he's a Nazi when his favorite daughter is literally an Orthodox Jew) The more we allow easily refuted arguments to propagate unopposed, the easier it is to assume that there are no legitimate arguments for a position.

Leary 7y ago

Apparently posts are considered too political when several people flag them. There are no hard rules that actually apply.

village-idiot 7y ago
The difference between "politics" and "world events" typically comes down to the geography of the observer.

tzakrajs 7y ago

Because white nationalism is alive and strong even here.

challenger22 7y ago

Because China is emotionally distant enough from most HN commenters that it does not trigger a flame war.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

umadon 7y ago

HN like other social online spaces is not neutral or free from influence. For example I would imagine upvotes are trivial to astroturf. A quick search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=purchase+upvotes+hackernews&ia=social https://duckduckgo.com/?q=purchase+upvotes+hackernews&ia=soc...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 7y ago

Well for me, many technology companies do their best to do business in China. Apple, which loves to tell the world how much they support human rights, builds iPhones and other products in China regardless of how bad China's record is and more. Yeah, my latest soap box is, companies have no right to tell us how great their rights support is, human, privacy, or otherwise, if they continue to produce product in a country like China, which seems to be doubling down on suppression.