My favorite is when people are selectively upvote/downvoting a long nested line of argument but fail to notice that the sides "swap" at some point and the voters fail to notice.
As opposed to treating fact-free rehashings of Israeli state propaganda as 'non-flattering statements' and decorating such treatments with thought-terminating epithets.
I included specific examples from the latest Iran discussion. Flagging responses dead like that is even more thought-terminating than my poor computer geek writing style.
Please respond to those examples in context/a substantive/HN worthy way and have a discussion, not a fact free handwaving of 'they're XYZ evil foreign power's propaganda'. How do the examples I provided break Hacker News guidelines and deserve not only a downvote but to be actively flagged dead? This is a discussion site, not a popularity site. Flagged is not supposed to be used to shape the discussion, but for severe violations of HN guidelines, which the examples do not rise to. The proper response is a response.
It's not a fact-free handwaving; every last one of those comments is just steelmanning Israel's position without any evidential basis. And if you are so deeply concerned about characterizing them as 'XYZ evil foreign power's propaganda', I wonder why you see no reason to push back on claims like this:
>Iran isn’t negotiating in good faith, and will likely need another round of attacks. America should also flood Iran with small arms for the revolutionaries
What kind of productive discussion do you think this encourages? And given that the intelligence community broadly considers the latter a losing proposition, are we to assume that you think they are all Iranian proxies?
My favorite is when people are selectively upvote/downvoting a long nested line of argument but fail to notice that the sides "swap" at some point and the voters fail to notice.
Speaks volumes about the community IMO.
[flagged]
As opposed to treating fact-free rehashings of Israeli state propaganda as 'non-flattering statements' and decorating such treatments with thought-terminating epithets.
I included specific examples from the latest Iran discussion. Flagging responses dead like that is even more thought-terminating than my poor computer geek writing style.
Please respond to those examples in context/a substantive/HN worthy way and have a discussion, not a fact free handwaving of 'they're XYZ evil foreign power's propaganda'. How do the examples I provided break Hacker News guidelines and deserve not only a downvote but to be actively flagged dead? This is a discussion site, not a popularity site. Flagged is not supposed to be used to shape the discussion, but for severe violations of HN guidelines, which the examples do not rise to. The proper response is a response.
It's not a fact-free handwaving; every last one of those comments is just steelmanning Israel's position without any evidential basis. And if you are so deeply concerned about characterizing them as 'XYZ evil foreign power's propaganda', I wonder why you see no reason to push back on claims like this:
>Iran isn’t negotiating in good faith, and will likely need another round of attacks. America should also flood Iran with small arms for the revolutionaries
What kind of productive discussion do you think this encourages? And given that the intelligence community broadly considers the latter a losing proposition, are we to assume that you think they are all Iranian proxies?