7 ms·
I wish we had moderation policies that would just remove mantras like the above, which contribute precisely zero to the conversation. We all know what they are:
by samhw 5y ago
I wish we had moderation policies that would just remove mantras like the above, which contribute precisely zero to the conversation. We all know what they are: "do you like [licking or some variant thereof] that boot [, bootlicker]?", "cry more, libtard", etc. They only serve as a thought-terminating cliché, to assert the speaker's own tribal allegiance and to place their interlocutor on the 'wrong side'.
I really don't think HN would be any the worse if they were removed. Anyone who wants to have a slanging match rather than an intelligent exchange of ideas can go to the Other Site.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ok123456 5y agoYes. Only the correct (i.e., pro natsec) position allowed. Good hacker ethos. If you actually go through and read the cables they show the opposite of humanitarian interest. It's mostly horse trading and appeasing despots. Above all else, the empire must be maintained.
- fightme 5y agoYou're making a tone argument but calling it a thought-terminating cliche. Anyone who's capable of forming an opinion on the CIA's policies has already settled on one. On the other hand, the parent downplays the CIA's actions, starting off with "Whatever one might think of US diplomacy", which oozes of propaganda and should be called out. Talking about places like "the Other Site" certainly sounds like tribalism though-- I hope that observation helps you on your journey!