Yeah man, remember when Biden called people retards and piggy, used his position to make millions off memecoins, draped his mug and name over government institutions, bulldozed half the White House, wanted to take over multiple countries, sicced masked idiots on the poor, pulled out of the WHO, the list goes on.
"I have clear evidence of wrongdoing in one case, and admittedly not very good evidence of wrongdoing in the other... I prefer the former."
Epistemologically insane, and that's not to mention the plainly obvious fact that even if the corruption were equal (which you openly admit actually doesn't comport with visible evidence), doing it visibly is clearly much more harmful to our society.
Taken to the extreme, someone can be the most rotten, corrupt soul on the planet, and so long as they truly keep it to themselves, none of us would even know about it, much less be affected by it.
A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it is in fact of far less nuisance and risk than a tree that falls on top of a house.
A more important question: How would someone look if they walked around insisting that a tree had recently fallen, but they can't tell you when/where/how because no one was around to hear it?
"But trust me, it was just as big as the one that fell on Bob's house, so I don't even see what anyone is upset about."
What a load of BS, Canada is the best friend the US could ask for.
Remember in 2018 when Canada held Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou under a U.S. extradition request? It tanked Canada/China relations and had trade ramifications Canada is still feeling today.
It's quite odd, the past days there's been this messaging from different users about how old allies haven't been good allies. First I saw this point about Denmark, now Canada.
Hard to understand where this is coming from, it's really odd to see it popping up out of nowhere when barely a year ago this would never have been brought up about any of these countries... Where is the messaging coming from?
That’s fair enough. Part of it is the Trump effect. I tend to dive pretty deep into things when they catch my interest. A lot of time we write things off as crazy simply because we don’t understand the context behind the presumption of insanity. So I try to look under the surface so to speak. I want to know why someone feels the way they do, even if their thesis is a little confused. Almost like: “I see you are very passionate about this, let me figure out why.”
I try to make the world make sense. Communication is a skill and many otherwise smart people simply fail to invest in it. Curiousity I suppose.
Sort of. Those of us outside the US are aware his support hasn’t cratered. There’s going to be the concern the US will just swap him out for someone similar.
If past history is anything to go by, the US will elect the current opposition, who won't be nearly strong enough to enact the reforms that would prevent an extremist party from returning to power in 4 years' time.
HN could do itself a huge favour by posting the usernames of whomever flags/upvotes/downvotes. Add an ‘engagement’ link to reveal these details on every post/comment.
Oh! Well that certainly helps, I shouldn't have assumed they didn't exist.
>flag without recourse
I'm just referring to posts of a certain subject matter that tend to get flagged. If I'm anti-XYZ, is there anything stopping someone from flagging all things XYZ so they don't make the front page?
> is there anything stopping someone from flagging all things XYZ
Yes, two things: (1) we take away flagging privileges from accounts that appear to be flagging based on such an agenda, and (2) users email us to review cases where they feel an article is on topic for Hacker News and should not have been flagged. We always review those cases, and sometimes we turn off the flags (but not always—it depends on whether we agree that the article is on-topic, contains significant new information, and can serve as the basis for a substantial discussion, among other factors).
reply