3 ms·
That is fine. Can you define "ideological flamewar comments", because I honestly did not expect that quoting the WEF verbatim would count. Yes, it is contoversi
by irthomasthomas 5y ago
That is fine. Can you define "ideological flamewar comments", because I honestly did not expect that quoting the WEF verbatim would count. Yes, it is contoversial, and perhaps posting that single sentance triggers your flamewar notice, but I always consider my comments carefuly and my goal is always to inform, not inflame. I think that most people would be interested in the fact that the WEF is working toward a world where we have no property and no privacy. And I am keen to hear what my HN colleagues think about that.
Can you also please let me know which of my previously comments you consider flamewar? That way I can adapt my writing to better fit. Thank you.
- dang 5y agoIt's a flamewar trope strongly associated with one side in an ideological battle. That's already enough. Also, talking points like that get repeated a lot, which means they have zero curiosity value (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). We want curious conversation here.
- irthomasthomas 5y agoThank you, I was not aware of that. I don't use any other social media, and I didn't learn until recently that the WEF want to eliminate privacy. I guess I am late, and missed the opportunity to discuss that . You mentioned that I had done this repeatedly, can you let me know some of the other offending comments please. Otherwise how can I know how to adapt?