7 ms·

[flagged]

by UIUC_06 2y ago

[flagged]

racional 2y ago
[flagged]
- UIUC_06 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - racional 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - UIUC_06 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - racional 2y ago
        [flagged]
        UIUC_06 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments to HN. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        racional 2y ago
        It would seem you've made a rush to judgement in this case, Dan. I'm patiently correcting people's broken narratives -- as kindly and magnanimously as anyone reasonably can, given, as in this particular case, the highly provocative and unsubstantiated statements they're making. While remaining direct, human and authentic (that is, without mincing words, or swathing them in undue or superficial gentleness -- considering the sometimes quite crass nature of what they've been saying). That's all that's happening here.
        dang 2y ago
        You've been breaking the guidelines badly and on many topics - here are just a few clear examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41183748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41183748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41166359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41166359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 Not cool. I tried at length to persuade you to stop doing this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40749821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40749821) but appear to have failed with that.
        racional 2y ago
        Can you explain how [4] breaks guidelines, please? I can see how [1]-[3] might appear contentious, at a very casual glance - but the wording I used in [4] was on its own terms entirely innocuous. All I'm saying is, basically -- "OK, so that's your position then" (while correctly and relevantly noting also, as you will confirm from the comment history, that they were conspicuously evasive in providing a straightforward answer up until that point). The follow-up question about the abducted minors (in case you were wondering about that) was entirely legitimate and relevant, as it's one of the many (rather awful and nasty) complications of the conflict that people who think there's an easy "deal" involving territory that just be cut to end this thing typically aren't thinking of (because by and large they aren't following the situation too closely anyway). They didn't have to answer it of course, but there was nothing uncivil about the question in itself, or my phrasing of it. Also, you'll note that I'm very carefully and diplomatically defusing their completely gratuitous and uncivil provocation ("I'm not your bitch"), which I notice you did not flag or call out the user on, even though this (in addition to "Are we 12 year olds?", and calling it a "BS question" when it was the exact opposite) was obviously way more inflammatory than any possible reading of my posting. In this case, you should be calling out the other user for their needlessly inflammatory rhetoric here -- not me, for my far more centered and non-escalatory response. [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...
        dang 2y ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments to HN. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - runarberg 2y ago
    Apartheid is the word used to describe practices and policies where one racial group dominates the other. Having legislators or other occupation of the oppressed racial group does not free you from label. There are famous historic examples of apartheid where the suppressed racial groups had plenty of opportunities as well as seat at the legislator. This includes the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and even Rhodesia. Apartheid is the word used by most people all over the world, including by several countries, international organizations, and even the ICJ. Now it can be argued that the apartheid only extends to the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem), however I—as do many people—would consider that a distinction without a difference, (it is also arguable whether that is true). > A multi-ethnic society would be the end of the Jews This is a racist, anti-Arab belief. Unless I’m misunderstanding, you are generalizing over a whole population of people that they are all intolerant, and cannot share society with other people.
- UIUC_06 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - racional 2y ago
    [flagged]

[flagged]

racional 2y ago

[flagged]

UIUC_06 2y ago
[flagged]
- racional 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - UIUC_06 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - racional 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - UIUC_06 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments to HN. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        racional 2y ago
        It would seem you've made a rush to judgement in this case, Dan. I'm patiently correcting people's broken narratives -- as kindly and magnanimously as anyone reasonably can, given, as in this particular case, the highly provocative and unsubstantiated statements they're making. While remaining direct, human and authentic (that is, without mincing words, or swathing them in undue or superficial gentleness -- considering the sometimes quite crass nature of what they've been saying). That's all that's happening here.
        dang 2y ago
        You've been breaking the guidelines badly and on many topics - here are just a few clear examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41183748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41183748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41166359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41166359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 Not cool. I tried at length to persuade you to stop doing this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40749821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40749821) but appear to have failed with that.
        racional 2y ago
        Can you explain how [4] breaks guidelines, please? I can see how [1]-[3] might appear contentious, at a very casual glance - but the wording I used in [4] was on its own terms entirely innocuous. All I'm saying is, basically -- "OK, so that's your position then" (while correctly and relevantly noting also, as you will confirm from the comment history, that they were conspicuously evasive in providing a straightforward answer up until that point). The follow-up question about the abducted minors (in case you were wondering about that) was entirely legitimate and relevant, as it's one of the many (rather awful and nasty) complications of the conflict that people who think there's an easy "deal" involving territory that just be cut to end this thing typically aren't thinking of (because by and large they aren't following the situation too closely anyway). They didn't have to answer it of course, but there was nothing uncivil about the question in itself, or my phrasing of it. Also, you'll note that I'm very carefully and diplomatically defusing their completely gratuitous and uncivil provocation ("I'm not your bitch"), which I notice you did not flag or call out the user on, even though this (in addition to "Are we 12 year olds?", and calling it a "BS question" when it was the exact opposite) was obviously way more inflammatory than any possible reading of my posting. In this case, you should be calling out the other user for their needlessly inflammatory rhetoric here -- not me, for my far more centered and non-escalatory response. [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41123755 See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-...
        dang 2y ago
        We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments to HN. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. It will eventually get your main account banned as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- runarberg 2y ago
  Apartheid is the word used to describe practices and policies where one racial group dominates the other. Having legislators or other occupation of the oppressed racial group does not free you from label. There are famous historic examples of apartheid where the suppressed racial groups had plenty of opportunities as well as seat at the legislator. This includes the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and even Rhodesia. Apartheid is the word used by most people all over the world, including by several countries, international organizations, and even the ICJ. Now it can be argued that the apartheid only extends to the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem), however I—as do many people—would consider that a distinction without a difference, (it is also arguable whether that is true). > A multi-ethnic society would be the end of the Jews This is a racist, anti-Arab belief. Unless I’m misunderstanding, you are generalizing over a whole population of people that they are all intolerant, and cannot share society with other people.
UIUC_06 2y ago
[flagged]
- racional 2y ago
  [flagged]