[pvg]

Let's also not forget the sack of Baghdad in 1258. You're deliberately highjacking a thread that's about a specific story with something completely different. This isn't 'caring' or some unflinching exercise of intellectual rigour. It's just inane.

[coldtea]

>You're deliberately highjacking a thread that's about a specific story with something completely different.

Where by "something completely different" you mean "with something of the exact same nature (people killed because of crossing a border) that still occurs often today"?

Conversations naturally expand to similar stories and greater lessons and perspective on things. Heck, a Rust announcement on HN will almost always expand to discussing type theory or static-vs-dynamic languages, Golang and C++ and same with everything else. That's what different threads are for.

What's inane is to artificially constrain a discussion, just to never break the echo chamber.

[jryle70]

No, the proper analogy is to vent against Java multi threading complexity in a Go concurrency topic, which serves nothing but distraction to the discussion.

To illustrate that, how about we talk about the brutal crackdown of illegal immigration in Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/russia-immigra...

Or expand even further -- to understand the anti-immigration sentiment -- let's discuss how the Chinese "invade" Russia's far east: http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/russia-china-and-the-far-east...

See my point?

You're free to open a new thread about US immigration issues. In fact there're already plenty of ongoing threads exploring the bad side of the politics, society, economy in the US. Are you worried your new thread wouldn't pique the interest around here?

[coldtea]

>To illustrate that, how about we talk about the brutal crackdown of illegal immigration in Russia:

Not sure what the point is though. Why shouldn't we talk about this (brutal crackdown of illegal immigration in Russia) in a subthread on this article?

It also seems totally relevant, e.g. to compare USSR-era border control to today's Russia, etc.

>Are you worried your new thread wouldn't pique the interest around here?

No, I'm worried about artificially limiting discussion to very narrow confines around a single particular topic.

Which doesn't even make sense. How much stuff can anybody here say about Mott's case in particular? And what's to say about it specifically that's not already in TFA?

It's the wider implications and issues around that that we all can contribute something to, and that's what makes conversation interesting.

[hueving]

>What's inane is to artificially constrain a discussion, just to never break the echo chamber.

You are the one trying to turn this into an echo chamber with a pivot into yet another discussion about US immigration politics.

[coldtea]

So, I'm turning this into an echo chamber by ...expanding the scope?

That's not how echo chambers work. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

[hueving]

No, you're changing the scope to something else that has been beaten to death in every article covering the executive order and "the wall".