Comment by zahlman
1 day ago
> The main reason to avoid flamewars is to protect the atmosphere on HN but you can't make the case that if the world is on fire we can just sit here and pretend it isn't happening
There are three possibilities: you can accept that reasonable people can look at the same evidence and conclude in good faith that the world is not in fact on fire (or that the flames work fundamentally differently from how you think they work); you can forbid one side of the argument from posting; or you can have a flamewar.
The first is my preference, but it clearly isn't happening. The second is antithetical to intellectual curiousity and completely misses the point of why any political discussion is tolerated. The third is of course explicitly against commenting guidelines.
I don't think it's reasonable that I get called a fascist (which is insulting and a serious accusation, by the way) simply because I disagree that something else is fascism. I don't think it's reasonable that I make long, researched comments with citations that take considerable effort on my part, and explain clearly why I see things the way I do, and point out my grievances, and get flagged for it, and also accused of various awful things in the responses. I don't think it's reasonable that I get flagged when I make short comments that simply assert basic objective truths, with the citations that prove them true, for no apparent reason other than that they serve to defend groups and actions that the people throwing the word "fascist" around have already deemed indefensible. I don't think it's reasonable that my submissions get flagged when they point at even-handed legal analyses by people who are presenting them in good faith and without calling anyone names or otherwise being unkind to those who disagree, again with only that apparent reason. I don't think it's reasonable that I get flagged in comments whose purpose is to point out that the above things are happening.
But I have had to deal with all of those things in just the last few days.
You've spent enough words defending the indefensible I think. That you now paint yourself the victim is disingenuous.
1. Of course it's defensible. The people who submit stories about it must think that there is some valid defense, because that's the only thing that justifies submitting the story.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There's nothing new here, and it wouldn't be interesting if everyone agreed. And all of the case studies are getting abundant TV news coverage.
Further, if one sincerely believes all this rhetoric, and lives in the USA, it would be profoundly irrational to waste time on HN talking about it. Of the people on HN who think this is "fascism", can you identify one who was actually convinced of it by this submission? I'm not convinced there are any who didn't already think the same, say, a year ago. There are any number of more productive things people could do to protect themselves, if they sincerely perceive a credible threat from a supposed fascist regime.
2. Of course it's defensible. I have been defending it. My interlocutors have been assuming the conclusion a priori. I can make posts that consist of nothing but evidenced facts and reasoning, and it at best goes nowhere.
At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749406 when I ceded that a shooting doesn't appear justified. I can't even fathom why. Am I not allowed to claim that the facts matter to me? Because they do.
3. Of course it's defensible. Any lawyer on Youtube except LegalEagle will tell you, for free, that in general the actions of ICE have been defensible. Only the Pretti shooting has even been controversial, and there are many people offering justifications, including widely-recognized self-defense expert Andrew Branca.
4. Of course it's defensible. If it were indefensible, I could not possibly have come up with as many words, or as much reasoning, legal theory and research, as I have.
I am not "painting myself as a victim", and there is nothing disingenuous about my complaint. I have clearly been treated unfairly, and I fully understand and have accounted for the perspective of those who disagree with me, and it objectively does not justify the response.
If I were in your shoes, I would consider dang’s response in this thread and contemplate whether this is the correct forum for your style of political analysis.
I did observe some of this activity over the past couple days and note that many of your interlocutors were also flagged, downvoted, etc., and not always for clearly legitimate reasons. I turned on showdead for a while just to follow the plot. So it goes.
I think it’s a good policy (in general, not specific to HN) to match your interlocutor’s effort. There’s no return on investment in any case.
I always have showdead on. I turned it on as soon as I learned that there was such a feature. Even the crypto scam posts amuse me.
I don't feel that I have a particular "style" of political analysis. In the case of ICE I'm not even doing political analysis; it's legal analysis.
I don't like seeing my communities swell with outrage that appears, to me, to be based on propaganda and ignorance. I would not be talking about these topics otherwise. And my defenses are not based in ideology, unless "the terms people are using here describe really serious terrible things, and shouldn't be abused" is an ideology.
I don't like being dissuaded from responding to it, because without any reassurance that it will be cleaned up as off-topic, that comes across to me as suppressing an opposed point of view. That especially galls on platforms that otherwise appear committed to open discussion of contentious topics.
I’m not dissuading or suppressing your point of view, mate. You’re clearly in some distress over this, but feel obligated (honor-bound?) to continue prosecuting your case. It’s a vicious cycle: the harder you hammer on this, the less persuasive you become, and accordingly the less satisfied you’ll be with the state of affairs. That’s all I’m saying.