Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

Re:Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter by network2592 on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @03:24PM (#29897310)

Parent comment may not care. But just wanted to thank you for the link. Had just seen one documentary piece on VICE. I was not aware of these other pieces.

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter by dang on Wednesday January 12, 2022 @11:48PM (#29916978)

Please stop perpetuating flamewars on Hacker News. We've had to ask you this many times before. Eventually we ban such accounts.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter by trasz on Thursday January 13, 2022 @07:00AM (#29919757)

Should I just ignore FUD then, or is there some way to respond to FUD in a way that doesn’t tend to provoke flame wars?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter by dang on Thursday January 13, 2022 @10:45AM (#29921942)

Good question. The two things that seem to work are:

(1) Provide correct information in a way that is more substantive and more respectful than the comment you're replying to;

and/or

(2) Chalk it up to the internet being wrong about everything and walk away (silently—not with a swipe).

As a side point, you'll usually end up at #2 anyhow, because #1 usually provokes more of the same, so after a certain number of iterations you'll find yourself in a tit-for-tat entanglement, which is greatly to be avoided.

The question is what is the optimal number of iterations. Probably it's 1. Maybe 2. Not 3. 4 is right out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter by network2592 on Tuesday January 11, 2022 @06:54PM (#29900221)

My comment is at the top of this thread. So naturally, I have made a genuine effort to reply to replies.

You constantly try to debase the conversation. Someone even reposted your comments to highlight how disingenuous your comments are [0]. Others have repeatedly pointed out how your comments have nothing to do with the current subject matter [1] or are simply regurgitating CCP talking points [2].

Clearly, engaging with your comments is not constructive. You are not interested in a genuine conversation. You attempt to deflate a potentially constructive conversation thread at every turn and trigger a flame war.

But it is a testament to Hacker News that by and large, the community has recognized your comments and efforts to derail the conversation for what they are.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29894558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893838 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29896092 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893832

[ Parent | on HN ]