4 ms·
Given that the 45 quote came directly from the article in question, this strikes me as a tad unreasonable in this case. At the very least, the 45 reference coul
by crispinb 7y ago
Given that the 45 quote came directly from the article in question, this strikes me as a tad unreasonable in this case. At the very least, the 45 reference could quite reasonably lead to interrogation of the article author's superficial concept of 'success' (regardless of one's politics).
- OJFord 7y agoI think commenting on a politician's character or personality is 'political flamebait' whatever quote from the article it's placed under.
- crispinb 7y agoEven if it's a response to that politician's own statement specifically commenting on questions of character? I really can't agree - distinguishing between 'political flamebait' and 'reflexively tugging the forelock to those in authority' clearly requires judgement, but the line isn't quite that fine.
- wpietri 7y agoThat could be true. But refusing to allow negative points, however accurate, about powerful people is a very strong political action.
- dang 7y agoOn the internet, alas, "could quite reasonably" translates to "probably won't". It's similar to Jerry Weinberg's point about the s-word ("should") translating to "isn't". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22537631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22537631
- crispinb 7y agoSure, but there's a risk of self-fulfilling prophecy if we're on too much of a hair trigger. In this case it wasn't as if the comment was either unrelated to the submission, or particularly inflammatory. A matter of judgement, of course. Probably enough said on that.
- dang 7y agoThe psychology of Donald Trump is no small trigger.