5 ms·

It's really disappointing to see so many exceptions to the no politics rule right when we need that rule the most. There really isn't anything to be gained by

It's really disappointing to see so many exceptions to the no politics rule right when we need that rule the most. There really isn't anything to be gained by discussing stories like this. We all know that atrocities are taking place. It's a war zone. A̶l̶s̶o̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶̶g̶l̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶l̶y̶̶ ̶b̶a̶d̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶i̶r̶c̶u̶m̶v̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ ̶r̶u̶l̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶P̶G̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶s̶u̶e̶.̶ Update: Actually, I went back and took a closer look at the couple examples I thought supported my argument that PG had some kind of bias on the issue. On second glance, I don't feel like I can honestly claim that he does. Perhaps he does, but I don't have any evidence on hand to support it. I don't want to be adding to the confusion here so I'm going to have to walk back that claim. However, I still don't feel like this topic really belongs on HN. It's a tragedy all around and very important on the world stage. But it seems like there are too many groups that have an interest in steering the conversation one way or another for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights of the victims.

beeboobaa 3y ago
What's that supposed bias?
- davesque 3y ago
  You know what? I went searching just now for examples that I thought could support my argument. But I honestly couldn't find any that really seemed unambiguous or like they couldn't be interpreted in another way. And the ones I had in mind didn't seem like they clearly were arguing for one side of things when I looked at them a second time. So yeah...going to have to walk that particular claim back it seems. But I still don't think we really should be discussing the topic on HN. Seems too fraught to really get any value out of it.
  - dang 3y ago
    I didn't see this comment until now, and tmnvix already said it, but I'd like to add some appreciation. It's dismayingly rare to see someone check their view against the data, change their mind, and say so. I guess it's not hard to understand why that is, but it's worth celebrating when someone goes the other way. I wish more of us would.
    - davesque 3y ago
      Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate it.
  - tmnvix 3y ago
    I appreciate your good faith here. I'd just like to add that this highlights an issue that comes up again and again in highly charged topics: impressions so easily overshadow facts and many people put a lot of effort into propagating impressions to the point that they become accepted and commented on as if they are facts. Ironically (given your original comment), you are exactly the type of person whose thoughts on this topic I would like to hear and the presence of people like you is why I do appreciate that some allowance for this topic has been made. That said, I know that it is a balancing act and I wouldn't like HN to become more tilted toward general politics.
- chacham15 3y ago
  Theres tons of evidence for this. Heres an example of pg furthering conspiracy theories: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1733146138226614465 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1733146138226614465 (note: Rashida Tlaib has extremist viewpoints and has even been censored by the house for those views). Here is a tweet with misinformation about Al-Shifa hospital that he retweeted: https://x.com/GhassanAbuSitt1/status/1722977553101562156?s=20 https://x.com/GhassanAbuSitt1/status/1722977553101562156?s=2... (and didnt correct the record). Here is him posting about Gaza not having fuel for hospitals (even though Hamas had copious stockpiles of it): https://x.com/Beltrew/status/1717247691455971742?s=20 https://x.com/Beltrew/status/1717247691455971742?s=20 Here is him reposting https://x.com/evanhill/status/1732567824160235800?s=20 https://x.com/evanhill/status/1732567824160235800?s=20 which is an extremely unfair comparison (to be more fair, compare the casualties, and get better sources for the actual damage. using "high end estimate" is an obviously biased comparison). There are plenty more, but you can look at his twitter for yourself. All of this, I'd be ok with saying may be coming from an entirely sympathetic perspective and trying to find a way back to peace...but where is the sympathy for the other side? There is certainly much to criticize when it comes to the actions of the israeli government, but where is the sympathy for its people? Where are the calls to return the israeli hostages? Where are the tweets denouncing Hamas for the murder and rape of civilians? Non-existant. This was a man I had deeply respected. I bought all his books, read all of his articles, been to startup school multiple times to hear him talk, but this incredibly unfair bias made me lose SO much respect for him. I really want to be wrong about this and would welcome another perspective, but at this point I've literally gone through all his tweets back to Oct 7 and there isnt a single one sympathetic to the israeli people. Please prove me wrong.
  - stoorafa 3y ago
    “Back to Oct 7” Oct 7 isn’t when history started. Just a few days earlier, Israeli people were storming a mosque in Jerusalem. Seventy five years earlier, they were ethnically cleansing Palestine. If you’d like to be biased, at least be open about it.
vore 3y ago
There is no "no politics" rule. There is only a discouragement about posting uninteresting politics.
neonsunset 3y ago
No, you are correct, there was no need for update - trivial scroll through his tweet history proves the accuracy of crossed out text (unless he deleted it).
dang 3y ago
As vore's reply points out, HN does not have a no politics rule. If you want to know how we think about this, there are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you look at some of those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a look. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 for the history of "HN is getting too political" perceptions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- davesque 3y ago
  Sure, although it does often seem that the convention we have around it amounts to a de facto rule. And I really struggle to see how this article passes the usual test of "satisfying intellectual curiosity". It's mostly an emotional appeal that doesn't give much information. We certainly know that atrocities took place on Oct. 7 and I'm sure none of us are surprised to hear first hand accounts from the Palestinian side that are also horrific. As many people have pointed out, the article comes from a heavily biased source. Saying that the article itself is interesting, regardless of the source, not only appears to overlook the quality of the article's content, but it also glosses over the harm that referring to biased sources does to the conversation. It seems like way oversimplifying the way that fraught conversations like this tend to go to just claim that the article itself should stand on its own. And, again, it could easily be argued that this article, in fact, doesn't stand on its own. Also, in this moment, referring me to a list of past instances of people claiming that "HN is getting too political" feels pretty dismissive. I don't doubt that people have claimed that in the past, but that's not some sort of balm that makes me feel any less justified in claiming it now.

beeboobaa 3y ago

What's that supposed bias?

davesque 3y ago
You know what? I went searching just now for examples that I thought could support my argument. But I honestly couldn't find any that really seemed unambiguous or like they couldn't be interpreted in another way. And the ones I had in mind didn't seem like they clearly were arguing for one side of things when I looked at them a second time. So yeah...going to have to walk that particular claim back it seems. But I still don't think we really should be discussing the topic on HN. Seems too fraught to really get any value out of it.
- dang 3y ago
  I didn't see this comment until now, and tmnvix already said it, but I'd like to add some appreciation. It's dismayingly rare to see someone check their view against the data, change their mind, and say so. I guess it's not hard to understand why that is, but it's worth celebrating when someone goes the other way. I wish more of us would.
  - davesque 3y ago
    Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate it.
- tmnvix 3y ago
  I appreciate your good faith here. I'd just like to add that this highlights an issue that comes up again and again in highly charged topics: impressions so easily overshadow facts and many people put a lot of effort into propagating impressions to the point that they become accepted and commented on as if they are facts. Ironically (given your original comment), you are exactly the type of person whose thoughts on this topic I would like to hear and the presence of people like you is why I do appreciate that some allowance for this topic has been made. That said, I know that it is a balancing act and I wouldn't like HN to become more tilted toward general politics.
chacham15 3y ago
Theres tons of evidence for this. Heres an example of pg furthering conspiracy theories: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1733146138226614465 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1733146138226614465 (note: Rashida Tlaib has extremist viewpoints and has even been censored by the house for those views). Here is a tweet with misinformation about Al-Shifa hospital that he retweeted: https://x.com/GhassanAbuSitt1/status/1722977553101562156?s=20 https://x.com/GhassanAbuSitt1/status/1722977553101562156?s=2... (and didnt correct the record). Here is him posting about Gaza not having fuel for hospitals (even though Hamas had copious stockpiles of it): https://x.com/Beltrew/status/1717247691455971742?s=20 https://x.com/Beltrew/status/1717247691455971742?s=20 Here is him reposting https://x.com/evanhill/status/1732567824160235800?s=20 https://x.com/evanhill/status/1732567824160235800?s=20 which is an extremely unfair comparison (to be more fair, compare the casualties, and get better sources for the actual damage. using "high end estimate" is an obviously biased comparison). There are plenty more, but you can look at his twitter for yourself. All of this, I'd be ok with saying may be coming from an entirely sympathetic perspective and trying to find a way back to peace...but where is the sympathy for the other side? There is certainly much to criticize when it comes to the actions of the israeli government, but where is the sympathy for its people? Where are the calls to return the israeli hostages? Where are the tweets denouncing Hamas for the murder and rape of civilians? Non-existant. This was a man I had deeply respected. I bought all his books, read all of his articles, been to startup school multiple times to hear him talk, but this incredibly unfair bias made me lose SO much respect for him. I really want to be wrong about this and would welcome another perspective, but at this point I've literally gone through all his tweets back to Oct 7 and there isnt a single one sympathetic to the israeli people. Please prove me wrong.
- stoorafa 3y ago
  “Back to Oct 7” Oct 7 isn’t when history started. Just a few days earlier, Israeli people were storming a mosque in Jerusalem. Seventy five years earlier, they were ethnically cleansing Palestine. If you’d like to be biased, at least be open about it.

vore 3y ago

There is no "no politics" rule. There is only a discouragement about posting uninteresting politics.

neonsunset 3y ago

No, you are correct, there was no need for update - trivial scroll through his tweet history proves the accuracy of crossed out text (unless he deleted it).

dang 3y ago

As vore's reply points out, HN does not have a no politics rule. If you want to know how we think about this, there are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you look at some of those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a look. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 for the history of "HN is getting too political" perceptions.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
davesque 3y ago
Sure, although it does often seem that the convention we have around it amounts to a de facto rule. And I really struggle to see how this article passes the usual test of "satisfying intellectual curiosity". It's mostly an emotional appeal that doesn't give much information. We certainly know that atrocities took place on Oct. 7 and I'm sure none of us are surprised to hear first hand accounts from the Palestinian side that are also horrific. As many people have pointed out, the article comes from a heavily biased source. Saying that the article itself is interesting, regardless of the source, not only appears to overlook the quality of the article's content, but it also glosses over the harm that referring to biased sources does to the conversation. It seems like way oversimplifying the way that fraught conversations like this tend to go to just claim that the article itself should stand on its own. And, again, it could easily be argued that this article, in fact, doesn't stand on its own. Also, in this moment, referring me to a list of past instances of people claiming that "HN is getting too political" feels pretty dismissive. I don't doubt that people have claimed that in the past, but that's not some sort of balm that makes me feel any less justified in claiming it now.