3 ms·

You can disparage the idea without the person. > see also: the suggested plan to give thousands to every new home buyer to help address affordability Would

You can disparage the idea without the person. > see also: *the* suggested plan to give thousands to every new home buyer to help address affordability Would still get the idea and issue across without the need to mention the 'who'. It does not change the meaning or the concern by adding in the 'who'. If that part was changed to any other name, would it still be a problem?

whimsicalism 2y ago
I mentioned it as Biden's plan because that is the referent of who proposed the plan, not out of some opposition to Biden. [0] It is truly easiest to reference policies by who proposed them. > If that part was changed to any other name, would it still be a problem? I would ask the same of you. Frankly, I don't think I would have gotten a reply like this and downvoted if it hadn't been mentioning the president on an election year. [0]: https://x.com/POTUS/status/1789052799130509325?lang=en https://x.com/POTUS/status/1789052799130509325?lang=en
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > It is truly easiest to reference policies by who proposed them. But for everyone bathed in the constant nuclear radiation of "{name}'s policy!!", it's going to remind people of the last time they saw a partisan clickbait mass media headline. If you want to engage people's curiosity, probably better to reference nameless policies around elections. Tldr - political news sucks, avoid anything that resembles it
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > If you want to engage people's curiosity, probably better to reference nameless policies around elections. I pretty much exclusively use HN as a refuge from that style of conversation. I'm sorry that so many people's brains are poisoned by political news or whatever, but I'm not really going to change what I find is a useful way of referring to things just to accommodate them. FWIW I am certainly going to vote for Biden, for all the good that it will do in California.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I'm not saying the response is reasonable. I'm saying it is. So either optimize for reality or stick to your principles.
joe_the_user 2y ago
Uh, in politics, plans are promoted by individuals. If a plan X is promoted by Y individual, describing the plan as "X's plan to Y" is simply an objective statement - if it is true (which a shallow Google search seems to say in this case). It is injecting partisan into the discussion but in the end, we need to discuss partisan politics well rather than avoid it. I mean, I'd broadly say we're stuck currently with Democrats promoting bad policies of laying band-aids across the disastrous marketization policies of the past while the Republicans mindless "cut things", killing what good about the state and maintaining the worst policies (see the "national monument effect" etc).
giantg2 2y ago
"You can disparage the idea without the person." Whether disparaging or promoting, naming the plan can be beneficial. It's pretty common to have multiple plans for the same topic/issue and calling out which one by the sponsor can differentiate it.

You can disparage the idea without the person. > see also: *the* suggested plan to give thousands to every new home buyer to help address affordability Would

whimsicalism 2y ago

I mentioned it as Biden's plan because that is the referent of who proposed the plan, not out of some opposition to Biden. [0] It is truly easiest to reference policies by who proposed them. > If that part was changed to any other name, would it still be a problem? I would ask the same of you. Frankly, I don't think I would have gotten a reply like this and downvoted if it hadn't been mentioning the president on an election year. [0]: https://x.com/POTUS/status/1789052799130509325?lang=en https://x.com/POTUS/status/1789052799130509325?lang=en

ethbr1 2y ago
> It is truly easiest to reference policies by who proposed them. But for everyone bathed in the constant nuclear radiation of "{name}'s policy!!", it's going to remind people of the last time they saw a partisan clickbait mass media headline. If you want to engage people's curiosity, probably better to reference nameless policies around elections. Tldr - political news sucks, avoid anything that resembles it
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  > If you want to engage people's curiosity, probably better to reference nameless policies around elections. I pretty much exclusively use HN as a refuge from that style of conversation. I'm sorry that so many people's brains are poisoned by political news or whatever, but I'm not really going to change what I find is a useful way of referring to things just to accommodate them. FWIW I am certainly going to vote for Biden, for all the good that it will do in California.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    I'm not saying the response is reasonable. I'm saying it is. So either optimize for reality or stick to your principles.

joe_the_user 2y ago

Uh, in politics, plans are promoted by individuals. If a plan X is promoted by Y individual, describing the plan as "X's plan to Y" is simply an objective statement - if it is true (which a shallow Google search seems to say in this case). It is injecting partisan into the discussion but in the end, we need to discuss partisan politics well rather than avoid it. I mean, I'd broadly say we're stuck currently with Democrats promoting bad policies of laying band-aids across the disastrous marketization policies of the past while the Republicans mindless "cut things", killing what good about the state and maintaining the worst policies (see the "national monument effect" etc).

giantg2 2y ago

"You can disparage the idea without the person." Whether disparaging or promoting, naming the plan can be beneficial. It's pretty common to have multiple plans for the same topic/issue and calling out which one by the sponsor can differentiate it.