4 ms·

I gather some readers here are flagging this article - despite it being of general interest - because of the political innuendo? Are we not to submit posts abou

I gather some readers here are flagging this article - despite it being of general interest - because of the political innuendo? Are we not to submit posts about WWII here for the next four years?

jgrahamc 2y ago
I flagged it because it seems far removed from HN stuff and my assumption is that this is posted as "I'm scared Trump will do something similar" and I can read about Trump stuff pretty much anywhere else. Post an article about cryptanalysis of WWII ciphers and I'll upvote it.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  It’s about Hitler and how governments work though?
  - jgrahamc 2y ago
    And?
    - gnfargbl 2y ago
      Well, the operation of constitutions is sometimes of interest to those of a technical mindset. I opened this post hoping to find some discussion of Gödel's Loophole which I think is an interesting topic, Trump notwithstanding.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  One of the attributes I like about HN is the variety of subjects that get posted. With the amount of reading material on the web, I read fewer books than I used to, so having serious essays pop up here on eclectic subjects makes me feel like I'm not completely frivolous. While I don't find the Trump innuendo ridiculous, I understand why some people would. The thing is, the article itself doesn't 'go there', and is interesting. If the post attracts annoyingly political comments that do 'go there', people can always flag the those comments.
- omnicognate 2y ago
  HN isn't only about tech. Today I've seen articles about photography (of workers), literary agencies, raves, wildfires (2 such) and the pronunciation of Latin. The article probably shouldn't be here just because HN users won't respond to it with the sort of discussion that is wanted on HN, but it's about history and the functioning of systems of government and these are definitely not topics that are "far removed from HN stuff".
  - jgrahamc 2y ago
    Yes, I know. I've been on HN for almost 18 years and am #26 by karma on this site.
    - omnicognate 2y ago
      My apologies, I didn't realise I was in the presence of internet royalty.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      This kind of proves internet points are very meaningless, when #26 by internet points still flags a post that is essentially about history because it hurts his contemporary fragile political sensibilities. The discussion on the post is not even about Trump, people are making some interesting points about the historical fact.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > probably shouldn't be here just because HN users won't respond to it with the sort of discussion that is wanted on HN There's still a few pro-Trump holdouts, and HN gets extremely weird about politics. But like every discussion of Trump it turns into a content free flamewar. (hi jgrahamc, I'm #22 by karma on this site, god help me)
- OJFord 2y ago
  Unless he starts invading Canada etc. Trump doesn't really affect me at all (other than through hard to predict global economic pressures, which aren't worth reading about others' guess/predictions) - HN discussing the feasibility of something similar happening in the modern US seems about the most interesting 'Trump stuff' I could read pretty much anywhere. And that's assuming it is an intentional link anyway, article was interesting, doesn't mention Trump, and is timed to anniversary of Hitler's ascent to power.
- dr_dshiv 2y ago
  I posted it because it had details about the legal and constitutional basis for Hitler’s rise to power. He sort of hacked the system. I knew he had been elected, but I had assumed he operated illegally. The article itself isn’t political, but I recognize that, on a day when the news is full of Trump taking over Greenland, this might be insensitive. Still, the article is worth reading.
- troyvit 2y ago
  Blarg, you're getting downvoted just for explaining your reasoning. We're a community, the flag feature is there for a reason, and near as I can tell it's fairly proofed against misuse. I don't agree with your assessment but I respect that you made it and acted on it.
hagbard_c 2y ago
That fully depends on the context in which those articles are posted. The last four years did not see a slew of articles on dementia, cognitive decline or reviews of Weekend at Bernie's for a reason - even though the first two are of general interest they would be seen as politically biased. Politics is supposed to be largely absent from this site, a rule which is not set in stone and seems to suffer from left-coast bias but it is part of the playbook. That some legacy media outlets now want to continue the Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! chants which played a significant part in losing the 'democrats' the presidency does not mean these articles are of 'general interest' since they are clearly aimed at linking whatever the Trump presidency says or does to their favourite scape goat.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  Most of us, here on HN, don't want to read comments that, even if we agree with them, are poorly written or unoriginal. Some days, there are political threads here on HN that are as high quality as one can find online. Other days it all goes wrong, and dang steps in. My feeling about this article, which, as far as I noticed, does not even allude to current events, is that it's worth reading regardless of who happens to be president, and that we ought just to flag any dumb comments it attracts, if it does attract them.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    Most of us, here on HN, are tired of the biased way political discourse is treated and even more tired of articles that are pushing the same old tropes which have been pushed by the same people for such a long time now. If you don't think this article is related to the Trump presidency that mostly signifies you fit in the target market for The Atlantic under its current leadership. For those who do not it stands out as yet another example of the legacy media crying ${wolf} [1] and as such can be relegated to the tottering pile of similar articles. [1] wolf="Hitler!";
    - thomassmith65 2y ago
      if you don't think this article is related to the Trump presidency It is, presumably, and yet the only reason to presume it is is because of its topic and the timing of its publication. The article never mentions Trump, and does not contain any winking 'just like you-know-who' asides. The first sentence even suggests the reason the author is publishing it now is because Hitler was appointed chancellor this month in 1933. Is that the real reason? Probably not - probably the inspiration was Trump - but that fact is couched deeply enough, and the article is interesting enough, that the article, imho, avoids turning into rage-bait.
bell-cot 2y ago
I figure it's flagged for being - in current context - a shoddy smear and simplistic click-bait for folks who hate and fear Trump & Co. (I did the 1st Comment, and was really tempted to bash The Atlantic for that. Maybe if I had, the discussion could have been positive, and the article not flagged? But given the provocative title, I'd bet not.)
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  It's hard to see how the same article, word for word, would seem like a shoddy smear if it had come out last year: it doesn't explicitly discuss current-day anything. In fact, a reader who is invested in current-day politics could mine it to support an argument either for or against Trump. And a reader who is of two minds about Trump, could read the article to form their own opinion. There are many political articles that don't belong on HN but this particular one isn't polemical or ideological enough, imo, to warrant pissing anyone off.

I gather some readers here are flagging this article - despite it being of general interest - because of the political innuendo? Are we not to submit posts about WWII here for the next four years?

jgrahamc 2y ago

I flagged it because it seems far removed from HN stuff and my assumption is that this is posted as "I'm scared Trump will do something similar" and I can read about Trump stuff pretty much anywhere else. Post an article about cryptanalysis of WWII ciphers and I'll upvote it.

llamaimperative 2y ago
It’s about Hitler and how governments work though?
- jgrahamc 2y ago
  And?
  - gnfargbl 2y ago
    Well, the operation of constitutions is sometimes of interest to those of a technical mindset. I opened this post hoping to find some discussion of Gödel's Loophole which I think is an interesting topic, Trump notwithstanding.
thomassmith65 2y ago
One of the attributes I like about HN is the variety of subjects that get posted. With the amount of reading material on the web, I read fewer books than I used to, so having serious essays pop up here on eclectic subjects makes me feel like I'm not completely frivolous. While I don't find the Trump innuendo ridiculous, I understand why some people would. The thing is, the article itself doesn't 'go there', and is interesting. If the post attracts annoyingly political comments that do 'go there', people can always flag the those comments.
omnicognate 2y ago
HN isn't only about tech. Today I've seen articles about photography (of workers), literary agencies, raves, wildfires (2 such) and the pronunciation of Latin. The article probably shouldn't be here just because HN users won't respond to it with the sort of discussion that is wanted on HN, but it's about history and the functioning of systems of government and these are definitely not topics that are "far removed from HN stuff".
- jgrahamc 2y ago
  Yes, I know. I've been on HN for almost 18 years and am #26 by karma on this site.
  - omnicognate 2y ago
    My apologies, I didn't realise I was in the presence of internet royalty.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    This kind of proves internet points are very meaningless, when #26 by internet points still flags a post that is essentially about history because it hurts his contemporary fragile political sensibilities. The discussion on the post is not even about Trump, people are making some interesting points about the historical fact.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > probably shouldn't be here just because HN users won't respond to it with the sort of discussion that is wanted on HN There's still a few pro-Trump holdouts, and HN gets extremely weird about politics. But like every discussion of Trump it turns into a content free flamewar. (hi jgrahamc, I'm #22 by karma on this site, god help me)
OJFord 2y ago
Unless he starts invading Canada etc. Trump doesn't really affect me at all (other than through hard to predict global economic pressures, which aren't worth reading about others' guess/predictions) - HN discussing the feasibility of something similar happening in the modern US seems about the most interesting 'Trump stuff' I could read pretty much anywhere. And that's assuming it is an intentional link anyway, article was interesting, doesn't mention Trump, and is timed to anniversary of Hitler's ascent to power.
dr_dshiv 2y ago
I posted it because it had details about the legal and constitutional basis for Hitler’s rise to power. He sort of hacked the system. I knew he had been elected, but I had assumed he operated illegally. The article itself isn’t political, but I recognize that, on a day when the news is full of Trump taking over Greenland, this might be insensitive. Still, the article is worth reading.
troyvit 2y ago
Blarg, you're getting downvoted just for explaining your reasoning. We're a community, the flag feature is there for a reason, and near as I can tell it's fairly proofed against misuse. I don't agree with your assessment but I respect that you made it and acted on it.

hagbard_c 2y ago

That fully depends on the context in which those articles are posted. The last four years did not see a slew of articles on dementia, cognitive decline or reviews of Weekend at Bernie's for a reason - even though the first two are of general interest they would be seen as politically biased. Politics is supposed to be largely absent from this site, a rule which is not set in stone and seems to suffer from left-coast bias but it is part of the playbook. That some legacy media outlets now want to continue the Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! chants which played a significant part in losing the 'democrats' the presidency does not mean these articles are of 'general interest' since they are clearly aimed at linking whatever the Trump presidency says or does to their favourite scape goat.

thomassmith65 2y ago
Most of us, here on HN, don't want to read comments that, even if we agree with them, are poorly written or unoriginal. Some days, there are political threads here on HN that are as high quality as one can find online. Other days it all goes wrong, and dang steps in. My feeling about this article, which, as far as I noticed, does not even allude to current events, is that it's worth reading regardless of who happens to be president, and that we ought just to flag any dumb comments it attracts, if it does attract them.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  Most of us, here on HN, are tired of the biased way political discourse is treated and even more tired of articles that are pushing the same old tropes which have been pushed by the same people for such a long time now. If you don't think this article is related to the Trump presidency that mostly signifies you fit in the target market for The Atlantic under its current leadership. For those who do not it stands out as yet another example of the legacy media crying ${wolf} [1] and as such can be relegated to the tottering pile of similar articles. [1] wolf="Hitler!";
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    if you don't think this article is related to the Trump presidency It is, presumably, and yet the only reason to presume it is is because of its topic and the timing of its publication. The article never mentions Trump, and does not contain any winking 'just like you-know-who' asides. The first sentence even suggests the reason the author is publishing it now is because Hitler was appointed chancellor this month in 1933. Is that the real reason? Probably not - probably the inspiration was Trump - but that fact is couched deeply enough, and the article is interesting enough, that the article, imho, avoids turning into rage-bait.

bell-cot 2y ago

I figure it's flagged for being - in current context - a shoddy smear and simplistic click-bait for folks who hate and fear Trump & Co. (I did the 1st Comment, and was really tempted to bash The Atlantic for that. Maybe if I had, the discussion could have been positive, and the article not flagged? But given the provocative title, I'd bet not.)

thomassmith65 2y ago
It's hard to see how the same article, word for word, would seem like a shoddy smear if it had come out last year: it doesn't explicitly discuss current-day anything. In fact, a reader who is invested in current-day politics could mine it to support an argument either for or against Trump. And a reader who is of two minds about Trump, could read the article to form their own opinion. There are many political articles that don't belong on HN but this particular one isn't polemical or ideological enough, imo, to warrant pissing anyone off.