It's common for people with strong feelings on a topic to leap to the conclusion that the mods are biased against their side and secretly supporting the opposite. This happens from every perspective on every divisive topic.
You are right, it's unfair because there is no strong evidence to make that assertion.
I don't mind about what are your personal political affiliations or sympathies, however, I still maintain that this topic is textbook against the guidelines, and because of that I'm still afraid we will see post against candidate X in the front page in a few months. Time will tell.
That's a common misunderstanding of HN's guidelines; what they say is that most stories about politics are off-topic, and of course most != all. This has been the case for a long time—see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
I'm not saying we always make the right call—we don't, and anyhow people always disagree about what the right call is. But the underlying principles are at least pretty clear.
I complained a few months ago that HN was the other way about an article that was 'disappeared' from HN on the atrocities in Gaza at the hands of Israel, it had scholarly backing.
Your comment doesn't stand to any reason and discussion here on HN are highly moderated, in my opinion at times it's balanced towards Israel as the term 'anti-semitim' is thrown around to stop any discussion and valid criticism about the Gaza war.
You can't appease everyone and 'anti-Semitism' has been weaponised very successfully by people who know exactly what they're doing.
If you think dang is trying to steer the conversation in an anti-israel direction, you are completely removed from reality. I've never seen dang operate in any controversial or bad faith way on this site. He's just trying to maintain the quality of the discourse.
Are we allowed to discuss the objective facts on the ground in Gaza or are those facts anti-semitic?
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I'm sure that you have legitimate reasons to feel the way you do, but you're posting to this thread in a way that is against the intended spirit, as I tried to explain it in the pinned comment at the top. Please don't do that. If you can't post in the intended spirit, that's understandable, but in that case please don't post until you can.
> Any rational person of western ideology, that isn’t myopically viewing this as some oppressed/oppressor academic generalization, gets why Israel must act the way they are acting.
Why must Israel act in a way that includes indiscriminate bombing? Those aren't just my words, by the way, but President Biden's [0], who's a self-proclaimed Zionist. [1]
Isn't it (A) not effective at eliminating Hamas and (B) likely to increase anti-Israel sentiment and radicalize the Gazan population, which is harmful to Israel's long-term security?
That's not accurate.
It's common for people with strong feelings on a topic to leap to the conclusion that the mods are biased against their side and secretly supporting the opposite. This happens from every perspective on every divisive topic.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
You are right, it's unfair because there is no strong evidence to make that assertion.
I don't mind about what are your personal political affiliations or sympathies, however, I still maintain that this topic is textbook against the guidelines, and because of that I'm still afraid we will see post against candidate X in the front page in a few months. Time will tell.
That's a common misunderstanding of HN's guidelines; what they say is that most stories about politics are off-topic, and of course most != all. This has been the case for a long time—see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
I'm not saying we always make the right call—we don't, and anyhow people always disagree about what the right call is. But the underlying principles are at least pretty clear.
I complained a few months ago that HN was the other way about an article that was 'disappeared' from HN on the atrocities in Gaza at the hands of Israel, it had scholarly backing.
Your comment doesn't stand to any reason and discussion here on HN are highly moderated, in my opinion at times it's balanced towards Israel as the term 'anti-semitim' is thrown around to stop any discussion and valid criticism about the Gaza war.
You can't appease everyone and 'anti-Semitism' has been weaponised very successfully by people who know exactly what they're doing.
People don't have to hide being anti-Israel. It's fine. You can be anti-Uganda, anti-France. Be anti-whatever country you like.
Sure, but I don't think is right to use their moderation powers to bend the guideline of this forum to push those views.
Quote:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, [...]. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
"Most" does not mean "all".
If you think dang is trying to steer the conversation in an anti-israel direction, you are completely removed from reality. I've never seen dang operate in any controversial or bad faith way on this site. He's just trying to maintain the quality of the discourse.
Are we allowed to discuss the objective facts on the ground in Gaza or are those facts anti-semitic?
[flagged]
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I'm sure that you have legitimate reasons to feel the way you do, but you're posting to this thread in a way that is against the intended spirit, as I tried to explain it in the pinned comment at the top. Please don't do that. If you can't post in the intended spirit, that's understandable, but in that case please don't post until you can.
(Exactly the same thing, of course, goes for the commenters you're in disagreement with - for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39151611)
[flagged]
I suppose it depends if you follow it in "the news" or your first contact was the Hamas videos of October 7th
It doesn't depend on anything.
Objectively, Hamas carried out a terrorist attack.
Objectively, Israel are conducting a genocide.
Anything else is hot air. Both deserve our criticism.
[flagged]
> Any rational person of western ideology, that isn’t myopically viewing this as some oppressed/oppressor academic generalization, gets why Israel must act the way they are acting.
Why must Israel act in a way that includes indiscriminate bombing? Those aren't just my words, by the way, but President Biden's [0], who's a self-proclaimed Zionist. [1]
Isn't it (A) not effective at eliminating Hamas and (B) likely to increase anti-Israel sentiment and radicalize the Gazan population, which is harmful to Israel's long-term security?
[0] https://apnews.com/article/biden-israel-hamas-oct-7-44c4229d... [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens...