4 ms·

A Lithuanian here Moral questions aside (as everyone here seems to focus on it), the people are split into roughly three camps: - Anti-vaxers: hate anything g

A Lithuanian here Moral questions aside (as everyone here seems to focus on it), the people are split into roughly three camps: - Anti-vaxers: hate anything government because Vax-Pass, including the China oriented diplomacy - Libtards: love anything government and worship the leader of the main party. They celebrate this and openly bash China because their Leader said that it is good - Non-involved people - worry about the economic consequences to businesses and people's lives. Most of them would have a hard time finding Taiwan (probably even China) on a blank map. In my opinion: Our Minister of Foreign Affairs went into this without really understanding what it would mean to the CCP and what possible counter-actions they can take. Lithuania was hit more than the politicians expected and we are, essentially, alone in this fight (save for endorsements and pats on the back). I guess that we will be in a pretty rough spot in short-term, while mid/long term can go either way depending on how the western powers and Taiwan will act.

mthoms 5y ago
I stopped reading at “Libtards”. Which is a shame because it sounds like you might have some meaningful insight. Edit: Flagged for pointing out that childish snark (a clear violation of HN guidelines) ruined an otherwise good comment? Ok, then.
- dang 5y ago
  The GP definitely shouldn't have included that provocation. But your comment did something worse: you singled out the provocation and reacted purely to that. That's blowing on the flames, and users correctly flagged it. What we want HN users to do is leave provocations where they find them, and respond/build on the most interesting things in a comment/article/topic instead. We even promoted this to the official guidelines recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article and rush to the thread to complain about it. Find something interesting to comment about instead. Perhaps it should say "article or post".
  - mthoms 5y ago
    >you singled out the provocation and reacted purely to that. Well I was actually trying to be constructive "it sounds like you might have some meaningful insight" but fair enough. Some feedback: The problem with reacting to the most "interesting" part is that the rest of the comment is tainted by the obvious bias (and lack of maturity) presented. The whole thing comes off as bad faith by the commenter so engaging such a person thoughtfully feels like encouraging the behaviour. Having said that, I realize the intent of the rule is to prevent escalation or amplification of such distractions. Next time I will flag and move on. Thanks for the heads up and all you do for this community. Happy Holidays.

mthoms 5y ago

I stopped reading at “Libtards”. Which is a shame because it sounds like you might have some meaningful insight. Edit: Flagged for pointing out that childish snark (a clear violation of HN guidelines) ruined an otherwise good comment? Ok, then.

dang 5y ago
The GP definitely shouldn't have included that provocation. But your comment did something worse: you singled out the provocation and reacted purely to that. That's blowing on the flames, and users correctly flagged it. What we want HN users to do is leave provocations where they find them, and respond/build on the most interesting things in a comment/article/topic instead. We even promoted this to the official guidelines recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article and rush to the thread to complain about it. Find something interesting to comment about instead. Perhaps it should say "article or post".
- mthoms 5y ago
  >you singled out the provocation and reacted purely to that. Well I was actually trying to be constructive "it sounds like you might have some meaningful insight" but fair enough. Some feedback: The problem with reacting to the most "interesting" part is that the rest of the comment is tainted by the obvious bias (and lack of maturity) presented. The whole thing comes off as bad faith by the commenter so engaging such a person thoughtfully feels like encouraging the behaviour. Having said that, I realize the intent of the rule is to prevent escalation or amplification of such distractions. Next time I will flag and move on. Thanks for the heads up and all you do for this community. Happy Holidays.