Can I quickly jump in and defend this as being acceptable, even though it's "politics"?
- This isn't going to start a US culture wars flamewar.
- It's terribly cynical to bury it, considering it amounts to saying "We'd really care about you being shot for being (allegedly) the victim of a disease, but you've chosen to die in ouy consciousness' off-week".
- It's a technically brilliant, marveling piece of storytelling.
For this week only, it counts as off topic. Under HN's normal standard (which we're going to revert to, with a few tweaks to the guidelines, after this week) it might be ok, I'm not sure.
a US culture wars flamewar.
The culture wars thing is a red herring. It's the flamewar bit (i.e. the destruction of thoughtful conversation) that we're worried about.
"For this week only, it counts as off topic. Under HN's normal standard (which we're going to revert to, with a few tweaks to the guidelines, after this week) it might be ok, I'm not sure."
I disagree with this. I'm puzzled how you can view the post and reduce it to politics.
"Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the process of making decisions applying to all members of each group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.[0]"
Exactly. The only thing political about this is that we're having this discussion. It's frightening to me that we would censor this brilliant piece out of the nonsense politicization of or thoughts now that facts (people dying in this case) are apparently no longer relevant. Glad Orwell didn't live to see this day.
Alas, politics:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404
Can I quickly jump in and defend this as being acceptable, even though it's "politics"?
- This isn't going to start a US culture wars flamewar.
- It's terribly cynical to bury it, considering it amounts to saying "We'd really care about you being shot for being (allegedly) the victim of a disease, but you've chosen to die in ouy consciousness' off-week".
- It's a technically brilliant, marveling piece of storytelling.
For this week only, it counts as off topic. Under HN's normal standard (which we're going to revert to, with a few tweaks to the guidelines, after this week) it might be ok, I'm not sure.
The culture wars thing is a red herring. It's the flamewar bit (i.e. the destruction of thoughtful conversation) that we're worried about.
That's too bad. It's a great example of journalism adapting to the modern web.
Sort of reminds me of the "Snow Fall" piece that was highly upvoted a few years back:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4950054
"For this week only, it counts as off topic. Under HN's normal standard (which we're going to revert to, with a few tweaks to the guidelines, after this week) it might be ok, I'm not sure."
I disagree with this. I'm puzzled how you can view the post and reduce it to politics.
It is about a president and the actions of a government, which seems somewhat politicized to me.
Avoiding the politics angle, can we discuss how unusable this site is on mobile?
You'll probably want to open an Ask HN, as it's off-topic for this thread.
This isn't politics at all.
"Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the process of making decisions applying to all members of each group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.[0]"
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
This documents the slaughter of humans and the collateral suffering.
It's disappointing that this would be flagged, and at best, it's completely misguided.
The only thing I can guess is that it was flagged because Trump's name is mentioned. Lame.
Exactly. The only thing political about this is that we're having this discussion. It's frightening to me that we would censor this brilliant piece out of the nonsense politicization of or thoughts now that facts (people dying in this case) are apparently no longer relevant. Glad Orwell didn't live to see this day.