[pastacacioepepe]

> downvotes, which indicate that a majority of users feel your comment does not add to the discussion.

I've been on HN for far less than you have but I still have more karma than you do, it means your contributions add less to the discussion than mine do, somehow.

Anyway I reposted it because it got flagged. It just had 2 downvotes, that's pretty normal and I'm used to my opinion not being popular here. After all there's lots of privileged americans and westerners in HN userbase.

But maybe you'd prefer to hear only one side?

Perhaps we should have only "discussions" where everyone agrees that the Western liberal point of view is the best and there are no downvotes at all. Oh that would be so enriching and stimulating!

[verteu]

> But maybe you'd prefer to hear only one side?

False balance fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

In the case of Navalny, there are mountains of evidence implicating Putin, including audio recording of a Russian agent admitting to a previous poisoning attempt [1].

> After all there's lots of privileged americans and westerners in HN userbase.

Ad hominem fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

> I still have more karma than you do, it means your contributions add less to the discussion than mine do, somehow

Obviously karma per comment is the more relevant metric here. Off-hand, I'd estimate you're in the lowest decile.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexei_Navalny#Te...

[pastacacioepepe]

Here comes debate bro with his list of fallacies.

Like I don't know what an ad hominem is or I care at all for the approval of a bunch of privileged shielded liberals...get a life. This isn't a high school debate contest and I couldn't care less about your rules when I know I'm right.

No matter who killed him or if he was killed at all, I'm glad Navalny is gone. One less fascist on this planet, and it's definitely helping expose hypocritical liberals like you.

And anyway you still have no hard proof that he was killed by the government. A previous poisoning is not proof of his assassination now, although it makes it likely. In any court, it wouldn't still be enough to warrant an arrest.

But who needs evidence when all you care about is discrediting the enemy and mounting a case to escalate a war?

Few days and we're supposed to know everything about Navalny's death. 5 years after Epstein's death and we still have no idea how did he die.

[verteu]

It's clear you have no interest in rational discussion.

Perhaps you'd be happier engaging with some local political groups that share your views?

Sounds a bit more productive than spamming a Californian VC firm's website with your hourly angry, poorly-informed political rants against "rich woke Western liberals" ;)