Would you please stop using HN for nationalistic or political battle? You've been doing that repeatedly, and we ban such accounts. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I appreciate the reason for the rule, but in this case, I'm curious who this person was "battling?" Seems like it was a top-level post that didn't argue with the original headline or article, but provided additional context. And I found it helpful since I'd forgotten about the whole "execute prisoners for their organs" thing that was (is) going on in China and that seems relevant.
The article is about a massacre, lots of other threads debated the existence and scale of atrocities in the massacre, and this specific thread just seemed to mention similar atrocities?
Specifically, if they had removed the "evil" and "bloody" metaphor, and phrased it like "Considering the supply chain and trade interactions between the US and China, it's worth considering the significant differences in human rights. For instance, the black market organ schemes of the 1990s and the Uighur concentration camps where millions of ethnic minorities are currently interned." <-- That seems like the exact same content which is completely relevant to conversations here?
(I'm an American with no Chinese connections or vested interest in the conversation, but I'm just curious how it specifically crossed a line, especially given the recent HN conversations about political discussions. I know it's a fine line but for this particular topic, it sparked my interest.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.)
The whole comment was fiery rhetoric against a political enemy. All that people are doing in that genre is shooting flaming arrows at each other. The arrows are predefined talking points and the flames are aggressive language.
Here's something I've learned by studying HN voting data: people's reactions to such posts are determined entirely by which side of a topic they're on—nothing else. Such posts exist not because of curiosity where we might grow or learn, but purely for repetition in which an existing feeling gets confirmed. The feeling might be pleasure (finally someone telling the truth about this important matter!) or pain (yet another asshole propagating lies!) but it's the same mechanism either way, no doubt with some hard core biochemistry behind it. If we want to have a site where curiosity can flourish, which is the point of Hacker News, we have to moderate that in every way we can.
The article is about a massacre, lots of other threads debated the existence and scale of atrocities in the massacre, and this specific thread just seemed to mention similar atrocities?
Specifically, if they had removed the "evil" and "bloody" metaphor, and phrased it like "Considering the supply chain and trade interactions between the US and China, it's worth considering the significant differences in human rights. For instance, the black market organ schemes of the 1990s and the Uighur concentration camps where millions of ethnic minorities are currently interned." <-- That seems like the exact same content which is completely relevant to conversations here?
(I'm an American with no Chinese connections or vested interest in the conversation, but I'm just curious how it specifically crossed a line, especially given the recent HN conversations about political discussions. I know it's a fine line but for this particular topic, it sparked my interest. Thanks in advance for your consideration.)