[toufiqbarhamov]

The first three top-level comments all laud the decision. That would appear to be the opposite of your central claim that May I remember that most HN jumped to defend Boeing and the FAA, without a shred of evidence?.

Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. It can also be helpful to not lump the tens of thousands of people here into one bin of “HN did x” when trying to make that point.

[gonvaled]

My central claim is this:

> It took China for once having an independent policy instead of "impartial" agencies pushing their agenda onto a defenseless world.

And I stand by my comment about HN: I clearly remember the bias on the discussion. The top comments are top comments once the story settles. And the replies to those comments show a different picture.

> Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics.

There is something worse than being slightly offensive: being biased and pushing damaging narratives onto the rest of us.

Let's notice that the truth has come out because a Max crash would also affect americans. Whenever interests are not so nicely alligned, we in the rest of the world end up paying the price.

[toufiqbarhamov]

You keep raising the issue of bias, but the one piece of supporting “evidence” for that bias doesn’t support your claim. You brush that off by saying it changed “after the story settled” as if that meant something.

I’m thinking that a mirror might help you with your bias concerns.

[gonvaled]

You keep adressing my secondary point. The one that seems to personally hurt you.

Stories evolve. Top voted comments change. The replies to those are also part of the discussion, and some are highly voted too.

My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.

[toufiqbarhamov]

You keep adressing my secondary point. The one that seems to personally hurt you.

Here’s an alternative theory... I didn’t take it personally because I didn’t take the stance you’re criticizing. Now you’re left in the untenable position of assuming I was offended on the behalf of some strangers, or what bothers me is unrelated to “hurtfulness” and has to do with something else.

My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.

Again, perspective is your friend. Maybe people disagree with you, maybe they disagree with how you’re saying what you’re saying, or maybe they agree with parts, but not the whole. This is yet another illustration of the perils in treating s diverse community as a monolith. For example my problem with your original comment was the signal:noise ratio, best illustrated by the complete innacuracy of how you characterized the reaction of so many people. Your latter day hand-waving about “it changed over time” is more of the same.