3 ms·

[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 say

[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.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  " said almost entirely apolitical" And this is where we disagree. I am saying it is "almost entirely" political. Not the content, but the making of the speech. And as I said before there is nothing wrong in anything being entirely or semi political. There is a place for politics in the world. Not on HN! "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." I got that. I never said you were saying something else. " Should we reject every 'how to make your startup work' article for repeating common themes?" When it is a politican, (no matter how talented a politican he is), making a speech very tenuously connected to startups, certainly. When an article is just re-warmed bits and pieces from various pre published articles, certainly. "I still think you're trying too hard to find fault with this as a submission to HN." I completely support your right to think so. That's what the downvote/upvote/flag buttons are for. And with that I leave the field to you. I have a "thread depth" trigger which just tripped. Adios.

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.

plinkplonk 17y ago
" said almost entirely apolitical" And this is where we disagree. I am saying it is "almost entirely" political. Not the content, but the making of the speech. And as I said before there is nothing wrong in anything being entirely or semi political. There is a place for politics in the world. Not on HN! "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." I got that. I never said you were saying something else. " Should we reject every 'how to make your startup work' article for repeating common themes?" When it is a politican, (no matter how talented a politican he is), making a speech very tenuously connected to startups, certainly. When an article is just re-warmed bits and pieces from various pre published articles, certainly. "I still think you're trying too hard to find fault with this as a submission to HN." I completely support your right to think so. That's what the downvote/upvote/flag buttons are for. And with that I leave the field to you. I have a "thread depth" trigger which just tripped. Adios.