[veave]

A consequence of having a system of flagging is that dang can avoid having to do any work by having users remove other users' comments, keeping the site in one side of the political spectrum. (Just to be clear, I don't think he particularly cares which side wins, as long as it allows him to avoid any responsibility)

[Dylan16807]

People still talk about these things all the fucking time. They're debated on worldwide TV broadcasts.

[maxbond]

I propose as an experiment, you go make an offensive left-wing comment on a relevant thread (maybe "ACAB" or "eat the rich"), and see if it gets flagged and downvoted.

I read a bunch of right-wing comments on HN (including ones making good arguments), the reports of left bias on HN are greatly overstated.

[defrost]

They're effectively contentless comments of no merit.

Any slogan yelling should get downvoted by HN standards regardless of partisan bias.

An Eat the Rich comment that includes a quality recipe, however, should be rewarded with tolerance if not upvotes.

[maxbond]

I can't say I agree, if someone made a high effort post arguing for eating the rich, I personally would still flag it because I flag all calls to violence, whether they are low effort or not. (Some people say "eat the rich" to mean "redistribute wealth through taxation," if I could tell that's what they meant I probably wouldn't flag it, other people uh, don't. Maybe the recipe you referenced is a policy proposal, let me know if I've misread you.)

[defrost]

How is advocating for eating the rich a call for violence though?

Are you assuming it's a call to kill them rather than a plea to not waste the protein?

The thing many people fail to realise about the Fore people in PNG was that their cannibalism was a mortuary rite of reverance for highly valued in group members that weren't killed for sustenance.

I can quote a paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581657/ or simply say I learnt that first hand 40+ years back as child tagging along on supply runs with Mike Alpers (see Author list).

Now .. given you might have gained a snippet of new infomation, how do you feel about upvoting this comment about eating high value members of society?

[Dylan16807]

> Are you assuming it's a call to kill them rather than a plea to not waste the protein?

It could possibly be such a plea if the implication is that their death is already imminent. Which means it's still advocating their downfall.

This isn't about cannibalism and your comments here are a waste of everyone's time.

[maxbond]

I wasn't born yesterday.

[DonHopkins]

I love babies!

...I just can't eat a whole one.

[defrost]

Hmm - a self evident non sequitur that fails to address a real point about the actual world and the assumptions made by people about both violence and cannabalism.

That's a poor comment from yourself- I'd hoped for better.

[DonHopkins]

If God didn't mean for poor people to eat rich people, he wouldn't have made them of meat. [1]

The Cannibal Cookbook: Human meat recipes from around the world

https://www.amazon.nl/-/en/Nico-Claux/dp/B08SGR2W6M

[1] Paraphrased from The Reluctant Cannibal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjAHw2DEBgw

[veave]

You are assuming that the topics I mentioned would be posted in the shape of short slogans, but they could be posted as long comments of several paragraphs and be flagged all the same.

Also there is no left bias. There is a progressive bias. Not exactly the same

[maxbond]

That's not really what I meant re slogans, they were more examples of convenience. But I could have expressed myself better there.

When I see political comments get flagged, it's usually because they said something explicitly offensive or insulting. They'll sign of with an edit attacking downvoters, say something insulting about their political opponents, or reference a conspiracy theory. That will reliably get you flagged regardless of the position you are advocating.