You brought up politics in relation to different economic class.

My point was how we treat ultra wealthy as a political issue is independent from the underlying reality. They aren’t directly outvoting poor people to revive more benefits, it’s instead a question of influence.

Billionaires tend to see positive ROI from getting involved in politics, which is self reinforcing over time. But, stepping back you can judge such systems not in terms of current politics parties operate, but in the broader context of how efficient systems are. In that context the ROI is negative for society even if it can be positive for some individuals that comes at significant cost.

Huh? A ‘side’ doesn’t imply an ‘economic class’?

Many millions of people can genuinely believe in something, be on a ‘side’, while being spread across the entire economic spectrum.

At best it can be said to be an ideological differentiation, not an economic differentiation.

> A ‘side’ doesn’t imply an ‘economic class’?

It does when the side described was the edges of a distribution.

> wealth distribution, on the one side we have the super and hyper-rich

Replace a few words and:

> height distribution, on the one side we have the tall and hyper-tall

HN users can write anything they want, but that doesn’t automatically imply what they wrote is credible or must be assumed to be true for all subsequent replies…

Hence why I wrote ‘side’ in quotation marks, because I didn’t fully agree with the original parent comment’s characterization.

e.g. HN user 1 can say X part of the population is on the ‘side’ of the moon being made of blue cheese and Y part is on the ‘side’ of the moon being made of cheddar cheese. But future replies by HN user 2 and user 3 are free to treat that as all meaningless gibberish.

If you disagree with what someone posted then add a counter argument don’t just pretend it didn’t exist.

It avoids this kind of pointless replies.

I read this comment a few minutes after it was posted and checked just now and you completely changed this comment to something else… I’m not going to engage with someone who does that without even putting an Edit: tag.

So yes please do not reply…

At first I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but upon reflection I deleted that comment as pointless.

Your behavior is simply unworthy of attempting an intellectual discussion.

Alright then leave, I’m not going to substantially engage with someone trying to deceive readers.

Edit: Consider yourself lucky I’m not requesting a mod to ban this account ‘Retric’ for deception.

That’s not how things operate here. Note how your complaint isn’t in the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The site encourages people to delete unproductive comments that haven’t been responding to as it improves the reading experiences for 3rd parties. Which is one of the reasons there’s a big old delete button and you can edit posts for a full hour.

Adding “Edit:” is important for clarity when a post has been responded to, without that it’s just clutter.

I’m not going to substantially engage with you. Period.

You never did meaningfully engage anywhere in the thread.

That’s the issue.

I’m not convinced you’re capable of meaningful dialogue.

Nobody’s going to trust the word of a proven deceiver… but if you want to burn away your account then I won’t stop you.