vyhd
vyhd on Hacker News
I wouldn't call it "obvious" that someone would accept another's opinion without any info to back it up and then extol it, though it's very interesting to me that you did.
I'm sure you would, but at least do us the decency of bringing data and leaving hyperbole out.
This is a wildly incendiary ideological rant and it has no place on HN.
What data did your friend use to come to that conclusion? Would you be willing to share so we can come to our own conclusions based on the evidence presented?
That's what a free market is, yes.
edit: or would you prefer "that's what a free market does"? Either way, this is a remarkably incendiary, and frankly absurd, attempt to recast voting with one's wallet as "dictatorship".
HN, in the general case, values civility over decency when the two conflict.
I regard it as a fundamental flaw; your mileage may vary.
I am deeply ambivalent about my tenure at Amazon overall, but I unconditionally applaud the level of psychological safety in their dev culture: there is a shared understanding that any system failure caused by a single person is
necessarily a failure of the process that governs changes to that system.
If there were any singular behavior I wish every tech company would adopt, it is that level of perspective on what makes a system reliable.
There really isn't a discussion to be had, unless you seriously want to try the claim that "shallow" and "substance-free" don't have substantial overlap.
Just accept that your comment did not live up to the guidelines set by this site, and try to learn from that.
They're referencing the site guidelines, so this statement is demonstrably false.
Normative statements are based on one's observations and interpretations of facts, and that basis can be meaningfully scrutinized.
> "But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will.
It is absurdity to make the claim that, since anyone can say anything, no meaningful concept of objectivity can exist. Interesting how often it recurs in "free speech at any cost" argumentation.
No, they got it right the first time. "Everything is political" is a reminder that we do not exist in a cultural vacuum. More pointedly, the simple act of existing in a space as a minority invites what you'd call "politics".
If your existence has never felt "political" to you, cherish that. I've been on the receiving end of many slurs and the occasional attempted assault, and I've watched politicians and pundits debate on cable TV whether I deserve to have the same rights afforded anyone else. I didn't choose to exist "politically", but I sure do notice when folks don't speak up against challenges to my existence because they view it as "politics" and therefore not worth their attention.
You refuse to acknowledge that sedition
actually occurred, choosing instead to worry over a theoretical slippery slope of censorship that somehow ends the United States.
QED. Safe to say we're done here.
> loaded words
The literal definition of sedition [1] is:
If two or more persons [...] conspire [...] to prevent, hinder, or delay the
execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or
possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof
1. Do you deny that the Capitol building was breached by force?
2. Do you deny that Congress was in session at this time?
3. Do you deny that the breach of the Capitol hindered the Congress's ability to certify vote totals for the presidential election?
If the answer to all three of those is "no", then we are literally talking about sedition.
[1]: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
The United States will be done in by... stamping out the free expression of openly organizing to commit sedition against the United States.
Spare us.
It's a damning indictment of "big tech" that it took Democrats having a trifecta in federal government and a violent mob breaking into the Capitol during a congressional session to get this level of investment in moderating, well after the hate on their platform has metastasized.
> Increasingly, you step out of line once with the Left-leaning mindset, you are muted or banned.
Citation needed.
A tale as old as HN itself: a service enforces its own Terms of Service, and commenters fall over themselves to defend an absurd absolutist ideal of "free speech" even when it directly leads to a violent mob committing sedition against the United States.
Spare us, please. Reconcile your ideals with what's in front of you today before insisting that we need to live up to those ideals.
I agree that the fault ultimately lies with the Bush administration for making false claims. However, it is _critically_ important to also place fault with the media outlets who simply repeated those claims, abandoning their duty as a check against the state.
This is literally the only take I've read in this entire comment thread that has a firm grasp on the entire picture. Thanks for that.
It's more akin to "a virus is less likely to spread if fewer people are in contact with known carriers", a.k.a. deplatforming.
Identifying lies doesn't require perfect knowledge of all truth.
Hopefully this proves to be an illustrative lesson: the best apologies are almost as good as not doing something that requires an apology at all.
Fortunately, most of the public are
not making that demand. It's well worth keeping in mind that those people are vastly outnumbered:
https://xkcd.com/2305/