5 ms·

To the mods, You do a great job at keeping a civil and respectful community here on HN. One of the main ways you do it is by restricting controversial stories

To the mods, You do a great job at keeping a civil and respectful community here on HN. One of the main ways you do it is by restricting controversial stories like this to prevent flame wars. While I respect your decision to do, and I don't pretend to know what it must be like to moderate any kind of online forum, I ask that this story stay up for the sole reason that we're living in a time that is truly without precedent. A sitting president calling for the delay of the election begins to solidify many of our worst fears. If we're not able to talk about it on the forums that are most rational and civil, what hope do we have to achieve any kind of productive discourse on this topic on the internet? Please let this stay up so that the community can discuss this major moment in American history.

sandworm101 6y ago
I second that, but this is not the story for such exemption. This is a purely partisan issue. This is a time for the supporters of side A to line up against supporters of side B. Whoever has the most political capital wins. I see little room for civil debate. There will be screaming.
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  This is a time for anyone who believes in the principles upon which this country was founded to speak up about a president who is increasingly hostile to every one of those principles.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    (the principles upon which this country was founded) Side A (hostile to every one of those principles) Side B We are beyond the rules. This is about changing rules. He with the most massive/ardent/loudest/richest support base wins. Just please keep the screaming of HN.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      I agree with you. How do we get back to a place where political discourse is de-escalated and we're not trying to out-shout each other?
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        Stop watching ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/NPR and Democracy Now?
        sandworm101 6y ago
        Ya, stick to twitter and facebook!
        anthony_romeo 6y ago
        > Stop watching ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/NPR and Democracy Now? I'm sorry, are you suggesting that NPR has lots of shouting? Have you ever listened to NPR before?
        djsumdog 6y ago
        Their bias has been increasing for years. I was turned off by NPR back in 2008 after this terrible Inskeep interview: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ I still listened to NPR for years after, but I listened to a lot of out news sources and always balanced the information I was getting with the bias I knew they held. NPR is a lot like RT, in the sense that it is sponsored by the State. Although you might say, "Well NPR is federal grants for non-profits and RT is state propaganda" just lines start to get blurry when you realize both have leadership that have certain agendas. I guess I shouldn't have said "Stop watching" and instead say "Be sure to watch ALL of these" and then add that you should watch independent analysis (Viva Frei, James Corbett, No Agenda podcast) of all these sources, weigh their biases and come to your own conclusions.
        anthony_romeo 6y ago
- save_ferris 6y ago
  That's a fair point. My only counterargument to it that the potential delay of a presidential election is partisan because one party is choosing to go down this path. This is only partisan because one side blindly follows its leader to whatever conclusion he wants. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, Americans should have consensus on this, but we don't anymore. I'm frightened by what that means for our future. edit: a word
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lyjackal 6y ago
It's an interesting question, where and how do you draw the line, especially when the line is moved forward inch by inch, usually with some kind of plausible deniability.
cs702 6y ago
Speaking for myself, at first I upvoted the OP, but after some thought, I decided to unvote it and then flag it, because it doesn't belong on HN, if we judge it through the lens of the HN guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Other HN users flagged it too, not just me. They reached the same conclusion. Ultimately, of course, it's the moderators' decision.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  There are things more important than HN guidelines, and even HN moderates tend to be reasonable in that regard.
rvz 6y ago
Well I wonder if the mods actually did read the guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. I guess this rule might as well be removed, given the noticeable increase of political HN posts these days.
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  I'd say this is an interesting new phenomenon, unless you can point to a prior U.S. president suggesting that an election should be postponed because he's losing.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    > suggesting that an election should be postponed because he's losing That's not what he suggested. He suggested changing the voting date because of a pandemic. We can guess that he's lying, and I'm not saying he's honest (obviously), but at the core, this is still just another fearmongering political post since he has no authority to change anything anyway.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      I agree the parent made an unnecessary, though obvious, accusation, but the article doesn't feel like fearmongering to me. It seems like a legitimate concern that is newsworthy, regardless of whether he can legally do what he is suggesting. As for whether it belongs on HN: I'm undecided on that. I lean toward "no", but I understand the arguments for it.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  Note the word "probably." This is not a hard and fast rule and there is always room for exceptions, by design. As others have stated, we live in unprecedented times and interesting new phenomena are occurring in the political sphere every day. You are also free to ignore any posts that are too political for your tastes.
koheripbal 6y ago
I would like offer a counter-point. People assume that Trump wants to delay the election to delay the end of his presidency. ...but pushing the date of the election back, say one month, would not alter the last day of him being President. Given that this is a speculative political fear post, I don't really think it belongs on HN. If another President had suggested changing the vote date because of a national pandemic, I'm not sure it would be meaningful news.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >If another President had suggested changing the vote date because of a national pandemic, I'm not sure it would be meaningful news. I agree the degree of newsworthiness would be lesser - but I don't agree with the implication that the president in question should not be a variable in the equation.
mFixman 6y ago
I disagree. I would accept this argument if the news was about the President actually moving to delay the election and having a reasonable chance of success, or anything where discussion would actually improve the news. This news is tremendous flame bait, and there's nothing that can be discussed in HN that wouldn't appear in major newspapers. If you want to discuss it with other people, Reddit is probably a better place.
dang 6y ago
I'm inclined to trust the community verdict on this one. There have been countless cases of (let's call it) the Trump/newsmedia industrial complex amplifying signals that feel like "major moments in American history" because they're designed to make you feel that way, but end up sound and fury signifying nothing. We can consult the site guidelines for additional guidance: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. If you consider this one in isolation, it feels significant, but "unprecedented in presidential history" has been the dog-bites-man story of the Trump administration. Viewed at that scope, this story does not pass the "interesting new phenomenon" test. The prudent thing is to let a few news cycles blow over and see if anything actually comes of this.

sandworm101 6y ago

I second that, but this is not the story for such exemption. This is a purely partisan issue. This is a time for the supporters of side A to line up against supporters of side B. Whoever has the most political capital wins. I see little room for civil debate. There will be screaming.

tenuousemphasis 6y ago
This is a time for anyone who believes in the principles upon which this country was founded to speak up about a president who is increasingly hostile to every one of those principles.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  (the principles upon which this country was founded) Side A (hostile to every one of those principles) Side B We are beyond the rules. This is about changing rules. He with the most massive/ardent/loudest/richest support base wins. Just please keep the screaming of HN.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    I agree with you. How do we get back to a place where political discourse is de-escalated and we're not trying to out-shout each other?
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      Stop watching ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/NPR and Democracy Now?
      - sandworm101 6y ago
        Ya, stick to twitter and facebook!
      - anthony_romeo 6y ago
        > Stop watching ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/NPR and Democracy Now? I'm sorry, are you suggesting that NPR has lots of shouting? Have you ever listened to NPR before?
        djsumdog 6y ago
        Their bias has been increasing for years. I was turned off by NPR back in 2008 after this terrible Inskeep interview: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ I still listened to NPR for years after, but I listened to a lot of out news sources and always balanced the information I was getting with the bias I knew they held. NPR is a lot like RT, in the sense that it is sponsored by the State. Although you might say, "Well NPR is federal grants for non-profits and RT is state propaganda" just lines start to get blurry when you realize both have leadership that have certain agendas. I guess I shouldn't have said "Stop watching" and instead say "Be sure to watch ALL of these" and then add that you should watch independent analysis (Viva Frei, James Corbett, No Agenda podcast) of all these sources, weigh their biases and come to your own conclusions.
        anthony_romeo 6y ago
save_ferris 6y ago
That's a fair point. My only counterargument to it that the potential delay of a presidential election is partisan because one party is choosing to go down this path. This is only partisan because one side blindly follows its leader to whatever conclusion he wants. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, Americans should have consensus on this, but we don't anymore. I'm frightened by what that means for our future. edit: a word

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lyjackal 6y ago

It's an interesting question, where and how do you draw the line, especially when the line is moved forward inch by inch, usually with some kind of plausible deniability.

cs702 6y ago

Speaking for myself, at first I upvoted the OP, but after some thought, I decided to unvote it and then flag it, because it doesn't belong on HN, if we judge it through the lens of the HN guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Other HN users flagged it too, not just me. They reached the same conclusion. Ultimately, of course, it's the moderators' decision.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
There are things more important than HN guidelines, and even HN moderates tend to be reasonable in that regard.

rvz 6y ago

Well I wonder if the mods actually did read the guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. I guess this rule might as well be removed, given the noticeable increase of political HN posts these days.

tenuousemphasis 6y ago
I'd say this is an interesting new phenomenon, unless you can point to a prior U.S. president suggesting that an election should be postponed because he's losing.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > suggesting that an election should be postponed because he's losing That's not what he suggested. He suggested changing the voting date because of a pandemic. We can guess that he's lying, and I'm not saying he's honest (obviously), but at the core, this is still just another fearmongering political post since he has no authority to change anything anyway.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    I agree the parent made an unnecessary, though obvious, accusation, but the article doesn't feel like fearmongering to me. It seems like a legitimate concern that is newsworthy, regardless of whether he can legally do what he is suggesting. As for whether it belongs on HN: I'm undecided on that. I lean toward "no", but I understand the arguments for it.
jgwil2 6y ago
Note the word "probably." This is not a hard and fast rule and there is always room for exceptions, by design. As others have stated, we live in unprecedented times and interesting new phenomena are occurring in the political sphere every day. You are also free to ignore any posts that are too political for your tastes.

koheripbal 6y ago

I would like offer a counter-point. People assume that Trump wants to delay the election to delay the end of his presidency. ...but pushing the date of the election back, say one month, would not alter the last day of him being President. Given that this is a speculative political fear post, I don't really think it belongs on HN. If another President had suggested changing the vote date because of a national pandemic, I'm not sure it would be meaningful news.

happytoexplain 6y ago
>If another President had suggested changing the vote date because of a national pandemic, I'm not sure it would be meaningful news. I agree the degree of newsworthiness would be lesser - but I don't agree with the implication that the president in question should not be a variable in the equation.

mFixman 6y ago

I disagree. I would accept this argument if the news was about the President actually moving to delay the election and having a reasonable chance of success, or anything where discussion would actually improve the news. This news is tremendous flame bait, and there's nothing that can be discussed in HN that wouldn't appear in major newspapers. If you want to discuss it with other people, Reddit is probably a better place.

dang 6y ago

I'm inclined to trust the community verdict on this one. There have been countless cases of (let's call it) the Trump/newsmedia industrial complex amplifying signals that feel like "major moments in American history" because they're designed to make you feel that way, but end up sound and fury signifying nothing. We can consult the site guidelines for additional guidance: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. If you consider this one in isolation, it feels significant, but "unprecedented in presidential history" has been the dog-bites-man story of the Trump administration. Viewed at that scope, this story does not pass the "interesting new phenomenon" test. The prudent thing is to let a few news cycles blow over and see if anything actually comes of this.