> I mean, by the letter of things I am assuming that Jason is supporting the genocide of Palestinians.
> Nobody living would care anymore, I guess.
You might want to brush up on HN's guidelines if you think that these comments are acceptable here:
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
I mean, by the letter of things I am assuming that Jason is supporting the genocide of Palestinians.
Nobody living would care anymore, I guess.
> I mean, by the letter of things I am assuming that Jason is supporting the genocide of Palestinians.
> Nobody living would care anymore, I guess.
You might want to brush up on HN's guidelines if you think that these comments are acceptable here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I often find that when I'm criticising something to be specific about what; in this case, which guideline you think I am in violation of.
Given the quote from Jason:
> This works so much better when there are living people who care.
What's the strongest interpretation of this given the context?
There's two ways to make this a reality:
1) Stop them caring
2) Stop them living
Given that the international community has been pushing hard for nearly a century for option 1; I'm guessing Jason means option 2.
2 replies →