[Moodles]

You're going to be down-voted to oblivion on hacker news, but I do agree with the general point that, the post you're replying to saying "'reality TV star' vs 'politician subject to decades of effort and millions spent to make said history checkered'" is needlessly political and doesn't belong on hacker news (same as your post).

[shadowgovt]

I'm happy to accept criticism of my characterization if it was factually inaccurate.

[Moodles]

It’s not so much the factual inaccuracy as the loaded language. One can factually describe Trump in a positive light and Clinton in a negative light. It’s needlessly emotive and doesn’t belong on HN in my opinion.

[shadowgovt]

I'm not sure I'd classify it as "needlessly" emotive; the topic is very serious and deserves engagement from people, and emotions are one of many ways to engage people.

In the spirit of the founder of Y Combinator, I'd suggest that perhaps the emotive response signals that there is a sacred cow worth exploring here.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

[Moodles]

I assume you would appreciate the loaded language if it was biased against your side then.

[shadowgovt]

Yes.

[Moodles]

Ok then. Personally I don’t like it and I suspect a lot of others don’t appreciate it either though. I think it also sabotages your own overall point because half the audience will just roll their eyes at the biased emotive language, rather than fully paying attention to your main point.

[luxuryballs]

fair enough, perhaps I should restrain myself from rebuttals in the future... but it was just too tempting