7 ms·

"American politics has a large bearing on my life. America's decisions about finance, foreign policy, fuel, war etc. affect us all" So does, say Chinese "decis

"American politics has a large bearing on my life. America's decisions about finance, foreign policy, fuel, war etc. affect us all" So does, say Chinese "decisions about finance, foreign policy, fuel, war etc". Hardly a good reason to post propaganda/political speeches of the Chinese president to HN. For that matter Al queda's policy decisions affect people all over the world. Not reason enough to post Osama Bin Laden's latest polemic on HN. I can even make tenuous "similiarities/relevance to startups" arguments. Taking on"established" foes check!, resource constrained, check! Tenacity and ingenuity key to victory? check! All this is not sufficient reason to discuss AQ (and its politics and speeches) here. fwiw the HN guidelines do say "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic" This is so a US local political issue and it is so on TV. "Would I like to see random speeches from the Ukrainian President on here? If it's a good speech and I can take something from it then why not?" Ukrainian (or Chinese) politics getting as much votes as the latest political kerfuffle on American TV ? That'll be the day! Please go through HN and show me one instance of a non American local political story that making the HN front page? "speech of this quality". This speech is of a superior quality? Compared to a speaking challenged Bush, sure. Compared to Clinton, not so much. Most politicians good enough to become US president are eloquent (or have good speechwriters). But essentially this speech is just a bunch of heart warming empty phrases, a "motherhood and apple pie" speech which addresses a political need in the USA. It is hardly the declaration or detailing of a new policy that will affect the world. Ahh, go ahead, turn HN into a forum to discuss American politics. The moderators don't seem to care. Why should I?

roc 17y ago
It was an almost entirely apolitical speech to children about personal responsibility, with points that apply to anyone starting something new, learning, or seeking inspiration. I get a little discouraged by the quantity of political articles on HN and I'm an American. So I can appreciate the frustration non-Americans might feel. But this is perhaps the wrong speech to take arms against.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  [EDIT added the word 'almost'] "almost entirely apolitical speech to children" People at those levels of power don't do anything "non political". I am not saying the content of the speech was political. The content is just a bunch of pious homilies and feel good (== "heartwarming") statements. "Insight"? Hardly. Any politician anywhere addressing anation's kids would say similiar things. The act of making this speech is (and so are the acts of people reacting against it). Else why is there so much political activity around this speech? " with points that apply to anyone starting something new, learning, or seeking inspiration." Arguably, the writings of Machiavelli or the teachings of Lao Tzu fit this need better. Insight shminsight. Just shows he has a panel of good speechwriters, (as would be expected of any US president) and the ability to deliver a speech well, (which , again would be expected of a US president). "this is perhaps the wrong speech to take arms against." I am not "taking arms" against the speech. I am perfectly fine with politicians in any country making any manner of speech to their constituents/ citizens. I am just disgusted with random speeches by American politicans (and the deaths of American senators) landing on HN with very tenuous connections to start ups or "the US affects the world" type statements made as a justification. But hey, I have only one flag or downvote. I guess the "people" have spoken on this one.
  - roc 17y ago
    I said almost entirely apolitical, thank you. Please try to capture the relevant context if you're going to quote. Your whole reply and my whole reply were about the speech in the context of its relevance to HN. So why you thought I was suggesting you opposed the speech itself is beyond me. And, again, I'm agreeing with you that the quantity of US political material on HN is unfortunate and the 'US affects the world' argument is not justification. As to your points: Should we reject every 'how to make your startup work' article for repeating common themes? Should we reject every author for having an ulterior motive of self-aggrandizement? (i.e. reject every attributed article) Should we reject every article that might have been improved by contributors, ghostwriters, editors, etc? I still think you're trying too hard to find fault with this as a submission to HN.
    - 17y ago
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
andrew1 17y ago
Suppose as an extreme example that 90% of the users of this site found that this article being listed here was useful for whatever reason (perhaps they're outside the US so it's not big news where they are and certainly not on TV, perhaps they learnt from the rhetoric, perhaps they were encouraged to take the step and apply for a Green Card to follow their start-up dream in the US now that the US seems to be turning back from its perceived hostile and insular attitude that grew up in the Bush years). If that were true would it matter that this article fell outside the 'guidelines'? There's more to an article than the actual words on the page.
- hughprime 17y ago
  Now you're _really_ drifting into politics there. Please don't.

roc 17y ago

It was an almost entirely apolitical speech to children about personal responsibility, with points that apply to anyone starting something new, learning, or seeking inspiration. I get a little discouraged by the quantity of political articles on HN and I'm an American. So I can appreciate the frustration non-Americans might feel. But this is perhaps the wrong speech to take arms against.

plinkplonk 17y ago
[EDIT added the word 'almost'] "almost entirely apolitical speech to children" People at those levels of power don't do anything "non political". I am not saying the content of the speech was political. The content is just a bunch of pious homilies and feel good (== "heartwarming") statements. "Insight"? Hardly. Any politician anywhere addressing anation's kids would say similiar things. The act of making this speech is (and so are the acts of people reacting against it). Else why is there so much political activity around this speech? " with points that apply to anyone starting something new, learning, or seeking inspiration." Arguably, the writings of Machiavelli or the teachings of Lao Tzu fit this need better. Insight shminsight. Just shows he has a panel of good speechwriters, (as would be expected of any US president) and the ability to deliver a speech well, (which , again would be expected of a US president). "this is perhaps the wrong speech to take arms against." I am not "taking arms" against the speech. I am perfectly fine with politicians in any country making any manner of speech to their constituents/ citizens. I am just disgusted with random speeches by American politicans (and the deaths of American senators) landing on HN with very tenuous connections to start ups or "the US affects the world" type statements made as a justification. But hey, I have only one flag or downvote. I guess the "people" have spoken on this one.
- roc 17y ago
  I said almost entirely apolitical, thank you. Please try to capture the relevant context if you're going to quote. Your whole reply and my whole reply were about the speech in the context of its relevance to HN. So why you thought I was suggesting you opposed the speech itself is beyond me. And, again, I'm agreeing with you that the quantity of US political material on HN is unfortunate and the 'US affects the world' argument is not justification. As to your points: Should we reject every 'how to make your startup work' article for repeating common themes? Should we reject every author for having an ulterior motive of self-aggrandizement? (i.e. reject every attributed article) Should we reject every article that might have been improved by contributors, ghostwriters, editors, etc? I still think you're trying too hard to find fault with this as a submission to HN.
  - 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

andrew1 17y ago

Suppose as an extreme example that 90% of the users of this site found that this article being listed here was useful for whatever reason (perhaps they're outside the US so it's not big news where they are and certainly not on TV, perhaps they learnt from the rhetoric, perhaps they were encouraged to take the step and apply for a Green Card to follow their start-up dream in the US now that the US seems to be turning back from its perceived hostile and insular attitude that grew up in the Bush years). If that were true would it matter that this article fell outside the 'guidelines'? There's more to an article than the actual words on the page.

hughprime 17y ago
Now you're _really_ drifting into politics there. Please don't.