[dang]

Could you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly lately. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[linksnapzz]

How is that unsubstantive? It may not be wholly accurate, but it is apposite in discussion of international relations between similar ethnic groups across national boundaries. Is there some word count that a comment has to hit before it can be considered substantive?

[dang]

It's unsubstantive because it's a snarky reference to the ultimate flamebait.

[Koshkin]

Perhaps this one is too obvious, but I think historical parallels are illuminating.

[dang]

Ok, but you need to follow the site guidelines when posting here. This one, for example:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

and this one:

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

and this one:

"Don't be snarky."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If there's a substantive comment to be made about that historical parallel, it would look very different from what you posted. The more flame-prone a topic is, the more flame retardant you need to avoid the obvious, predictable trollish effects.

[linksnapzz]

<q>If there's a substantive comment to be made about that historical parallel, it would look very different from what you posted.</p>

Given that you seem to have the authoritative editorial position on these comments, can you give us an example of what you might consider substantive in this particular case? So that we, in the peanut gallery, could have something to go on when crafting our responses? We're not mind readers.

[dang]

Are you asking me to point you to a substantive internet comment drawing an interesting parallel between some divisive contemporary situation and Nazis, while managing not to be flamebait? I don't know of one. Note that word "if".