4 ms·

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 revie

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.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    So far, you're the most political one on this thread. You're the most set in your position, and the most argumentative in favor of it, and using the most loaded language to do it. (Not to single you out too much - I've become more and more sensitive to people who are here in "transmit-only mode". They won't listen, they won't have an actual discussion, they will only argue for their viewpoint, they won't concede or accept any of the other side's points, and they won't shut up, ever. It's completely antithetical to what HN is supposed to be, and I'm seeing it more and more, and it's really getting under my skin. It's making a site that I really like into something that I like a lot less - into just another battleground for a bunch of shouting people. So, hagbard_c, you're getting an over-reaction because of a bunch of pent-up frustration at people who are not you. But you're trending in the same direction, and you're doing it while complaining about the way political discussions happen here.)
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      I don't consider what I've seen here an overreaction, especially not seen in the light of how anyone who dared to venture outside of the desired narrative was treated in the last decade or so. If anything the reaction is quite mild which I consider to be a good sign for the future discourse on this site. I am here for the same reason as you are and I voice my opinion on 'political' subjects just like you do, we just happen to be on different sides of the political divide in at least some areas. The mere fact that you do not agree with my stance does not mean I am in 'transmit-only mode' (whatever that means). To solve the problem of polarisation it is necessary to first recognise it exists which includes looking at your own position and recognising it as being not the centre of truth but a point somewhere on the plane of the allowed discourse. This goes not just for you but for everyone, myself included. It does not mean you need to relinquish your position as soon as someone voices disagreement or starts labelling you in some way - *-ist, *-phobe or some of the more creative ones popping up every now and then. This goes for everyone as well, what you consider to be existential truth is probably hogwash to some others out there and vice-versa. So, AnimalMuppet, we both peruse this site for our own purposes and may meet again, may this be in the spirit of constructive dialogue and not in one of bitter resentment versus those who dare to disagree. An open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters after all?
pjc50 2y ago
It's remarkable how the 81 year old guy was "too old" after a moment of incoherency, so the election went to the 77 year old guy who's been incoherent for years. Double standards, eh.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  Not 'too old' as in having lived many years but 'too old' as in 'past expiry date' but apart from that it would be good to see a younger generation - but not too young, old enough to have gained enough experience to view things from all sides but young enough to have skin in the game - take over from the current crop but that is set to happen after Trump disappears in 4 or fewer years. Vance will have gained experience and is close to the age bracket which I prefer to see in these positions - a bit young but given 4 years he'll do - and I assume the 'democrats' [1] will come up with a better alternative than what they have brought to bear in the last decennium or so. The Republicans need opposition just like the 'democrats' need it, especially given the fact that Trump has 'nothing to loose' because he can not stay on after this period. [1] if and when that party gets rid of the autocracy which is the current DNC I may return to writing their name capitalised and without quotation marks but as long as that is not done the label does not fit the contents and those quotation marks are necessary in the spirit of 'truth in advertising'.

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.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  So far, you're the most political one on this thread. You're the most set in your position, and the most argumentative in favor of it, and using the most loaded language to do it. (Not to single you out too much - I've become more and more sensitive to people who are here in "transmit-only mode". They won't listen, they won't have an actual discussion, they will only argue for their viewpoint, they won't concede or accept any of the other side's points, and they won't shut up, ever. It's completely antithetical to what HN is supposed to be, and I'm seeing it more and more, and it's really getting under my skin. It's making a site that I really like into something that I like a lot less - into just another battleground for a bunch of shouting people. So, hagbard_c, you're getting an over-reaction because of a bunch of pent-up frustration at people who are not you. But you're trending in the same direction, and you're doing it while complaining about the way political discussions happen here.)
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    I don't consider what I've seen here an overreaction, especially not seen in the light of how anyone who dared to venture outside of the desired narrative was treated in the last decade or so. If anything the reaction is quite mild which I consider to be a good sign for the future discourse on this site. I am here for the same reason as you are and I voice my opinion on 'political' subjects just like you do, we just happen to be on different sides of the political divide in at least some areas. The mere fact that you do not agree with my stance does not mean I am in 'transmit-only mode' (whatever that means). To solve the problem of polarisation it is necessary to first recognise it exists which includes looking at your own position and recognising it as being not the centre of truth but a point somewhere on the plane of the allowed discourse. This goes not just for you but for everyone, myself included. It does not mean you need to relinquish your position as soon as someone voices disagreement or starts labelling you in some way - *-ist, *-phobe or some of the more creative ones popping up every now and then. This goes for everyone as well, what you consider to be existential truth is probably hogwash to some others out there and vice-versa. So, AnimalMuppet, we both peruse this site for our own purposes and may meet again, may this be in the spirit of constructive dialogue and not in one of bitter resentment versus those who dare to disagree. An open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters after all?

pjc50 2y ago

It's remarkable how the 81 year old guy was "too old" after a moment of incoherency, so the election went to the 77 year old guy who's been incoherent for years. Double standards, eh.

hagbard_c 2y ago
Not 'too old' as in having lived many years but 'too old' as in 'past expiry date' but apart from that it would be good to see a younger generation - but not too young, old enough to have gained enough experience to view things from all sides but young enough to have skin in the game - take over from the current crop but that is set to happen after Trump disappears in 4 or fewer years. Vance will have gained experience and is close to the age bracket which I prefer to see in these positions - a bit young but given 4 years he'll do - and I assume the 'democrats' [1] will come up with a better alternative than what they have brought to bear in the last decennium or so. The Republicans need opposition just like the 'democrats' need it, especially given the fact that Trump has 'nothing to loose' because he can not stay on after this period. [1] if and when that party gets rid of the autocracy which is the current DNC I may return to writing their name capitalised and without quotation marks but as long as that is not done the label does not fit the contents and those quotation marks are necessary in the spirit of 'truth in advertising'.