4 ms·

No, not dozens of Innocents. About 1500, which is a lot more. You should read the comment that you replied to again. You're railing against a fact, not an opin

No, not dozens of Innocents. About 1500, which is a lot more. You should read the comment that you replied to again. You're railing against a fact, not an opinion.

spacecadet 7mo ago
People don't think anymore, they just react... Im pretty sure Im done engaging on this platform for that reason. Nearly every comment is met by some crass remark that clearly demonstrates the person didn't actually understand the comment, just reacted to the trigger words within it.
- nickff 7mo ago
  This is best exemplified by all the comments (on varying posts) saying: 'I misread the title, and interpreted as X, haha!'. HN has unfortunately slid in the direction of Reddit (despite the HN Guidelines' denial of this).
  - spacecadet 7mo ago
    It always has been.
jibal 7mo ago
Dozens of innocents (5% of 1250 = 63) killed "extrajudicially" (i.e., illegally) by the drones that are the subject of the article, and those deaths were dismissed by the rationalization in the comment they replied to.
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  If you can't handle additional context being brought to the conversation, maybe its best for you to duck out.
  - jibal 7mo ago
    So much projection here from RWers, as usual. I will bow out of this, due to the massive levels of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      "Everybody who disagrees with me is le Nazi!" Get a grip.
    - ghurtado 7mo ago
      "if you can't handle being an adult you should leave" "I shall leave"
croes 7mo ago
They mean the 5% of 1250 killed by drones
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  We know what he meant, and he's being obtuse. Thinks thousands of deaths due to rampant crime somehow aren't or shouldn't be part of the discussion when the collateral cost of law enforcement efforts are discussed. Very dumb.
  - croes 7mo ago
    That where only the collaterals of the drone strikes. More people are killed with at least 17% innocent civilians
  - havenbarnes 7mo ago
    I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.
    - ghurtado 7mo ago
      Spamming the same comment over and over again, what a sad existence. Flagged. Honestly, you do not belong in this platform. You have the maturity of a 3rd grader.
      - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
        Personal attacks also do not belong on this platform. Regardless of what you think of the GP's comments, don't reply like this.
        jibal 7mo ago
        Neither mikkupikku nor ghurtado seem to care.
- 7mo ago
havenbarnes 7mo ago
I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.
- ghurtado 7mo ago
  Oh right the sarcasm and the histrionics. Yeah, that makes you sound like a petulant child that should not be taken seriously. Do you need any more feedback about your comment or are we done?

No, not dozens of Innocents. About 1500, which is a lot more. You should read the comment that you replied to again. You're railing against a fact, not an opinion.

spacecadet 7mo ago

People don't think anymore, they just react... Im pretty sure Im done engaging on this platform for that reason. Nearly every comment is met by some crass remark that clearly demonstrates the person didn't actually understand the comment, just reacted to the trigger words within it.

nickff 7mo ago
This is best exemplified by all the comments (on varying posts) saying: 'I misread the title, and interpreted as X, haha!'. HN has unfortunately slid in the direction of Reddit (despite the HN Guidelines' denial of this).
- spacecadet 7mo ago
  It always has been.

jibal 7mo ago

Dozens of innocents (5% of 1250 = 63) killed "extrajudicially" (i.e., illegally) by the drones that are the subject of the article, and those deaths were dismissed by the rationalization in the comment they replied to.

mikkupikku 7mo ago
If you can't handle additional context being brought to the conversation, maybe its best for you to duck out.
- jibal 7mo ago
  So much projection here from RWers, as usual. I will bow out of this, due to the massive levels of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    "Everybody who disagrees with me is le Nazi!" Get a grip.
  - ghurtado 7mo ago
    "if you can't handle being an adult you should leave" "I shall leave"

croes 7mo ago

They mean the 5% of 1250 killed by drones

mikkupikku 7mo ago
We know what he meant, and he's being obtuse. Thinks thousands of deaths due to rampant crime somehow aren't or shouldn't be part of the discussion when the collateral cost of law enforcement efforts are discussed. Very dumb.
- croes 7mo ago
  That where only the collaterals of the drone strikes. More people are killed with at least 17% innocent civilians
- havenbarnes 7mo ago
  I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.
  - ghurtado 7mo ago
    Spamming the same comment over and over again, what a sad existence. Flagged. Honestly, you do not belong in this platform. You have the maturity of a 3rd grader.
    - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
      Personal attacks also do not belong on this platform. Regardless of what you think of the GP's comments, don't reply like this.
      - jibal 7mo ago
        Neither mikkupikku nor ghurtado seem to care.
7mo ago

havenbarnes 7mo ago

I figured my wording was clearly sarcastic but I should’ve added a “/s”. Extrajudicial slaughtering is not something I’d support regardless of civilian casualty rate.

ghurtado 7mo ago
Oh right the sarcasm and the histrionics. Yeah, that makes you sound like a petulant child that should not be taken seriously. Do you need any more feedback about your comment or are we done?