Comment by andrewcooke | Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewcooke | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

From what I've read (I'm afraid I don't have references, and reports vary wildly, this is just my synthesis, following the news fairly closely, as I live in S America) he's doing about average. The country is seeing gains in certain areas (health expectancy, literacy), but they seem to be (within the uncertainties I listed earlier) about what you'd expect from any country that has a sudden boost in (oil related) income.

I say all that to basically explain that it's unlikely he will collapse any time soon.

He's certainly a populist leader, which I find personally distasteful. And he has little respect for free speech or democracy, which is even worse (from my POV). But I think we're also understanding that the "western model" isn't that great either (articles of evidence: (1) the recent financial fiasco; (2) China).

[Edit: I feel I am not really contributing much except uncertainty here. So here's a more decisive take: the biggest problem facing S American politics is, in my opinion, corruption. The kind of approach that Chavez uses encourages corruption and so should be resisted. On the other hand - more uncertainty - most alternatives (particularly military law - this is a big lesson from Chile) also encourage corruption. And, wow, downvoted already... some passive aggressive cunt who hasn't bothered to explain why. What a surprise...]

I was just writing a defense of your thoughtful, nuanced comment, about how preposterous it was to downvote it when the parent, which contains nothing but ra-ra-team ideology, was sitting at +6. But then I noticed the charming addendum you put at the end. Come on Andrew, please don't do that. Not only does it violate the rules and spirit of the site, it undermines everything you wrote. In fact it totally spoils it (and changes the subject into a big distraction).

Edit: PG said he didn't want to let HN go down without a fight. It's our reponsibility to fight for it too. You've been around here for a long time and made many valuable contributions (definitely including this one, if that noxious bit were excised; there are so few comments on Venezuela that aren't 100% determined by ideological agenda).

Part of that fight should be flagging articles like this that are basically about politics. Look at the discussion it has generated:-/

You pick a bad example. Andrew's comment was unusually thoughtful until the end bit, it was the end bit which derailed the thread, and the end bit has nothing to do with politics.

I picked a great example:

> the "western model" isn't that great either

and

> classic socialist play

How much more shallow can you get in your analysis than pithy comments like those? Both of them are flame bait for various people and ultimately don't seem to produce productive discourse.

"And, wow, downvoted already... some passive aggressive cunt who hasn't bothered to explain why. What a surprise..."

Indeed. If you downvote someone's comment, you should at least have the balls to make a coherent reply stating what you disagree with, or upvote such an argument.

Wrong.

I would have up voted you, if you hadn't used the term "cunt".

As an aside (and purely for my own interest) is that because you consider that word particularly offensive - or just because of the whole tone of that p.s?

I ask because I'm noticing that while people seem to care less and less about "fuck" in conversation they are caring more about that word.

(this is a genuine interest by the way)

I'd not react if someone used "fuck" as an expletive (depending on situation), but if someone called another in the discussion for "fucker", or similar.

In sum: A curse is not high class, but might pass. A general insult to someone, because they disagreed, is much worse.

(And I partly agree with the poster, if someone disagrees I'd like a motivated comment. A vote up/down is just frustrating; what can I learn? [Edit: But to vote up/down to show you're (dis)agreeing is the culture on HN, it seems. So I accept that.])

Disclaimer: I'm not a native English speaker, but afaik "cunt" is quite offensive.

Gotcha. That makes sense :-)

(and yeh I agree with the rest of what you say)

you're confusing me with someone that cares. at this point, for me, voting here is for groupthink. if people want to that signal i'm not part of "the gang", fine - that's been the way it's been for most of my life. as for this thread, there are plenty more where i am not down-voted without explanations and i'll be polite to the people in those.

>>you're confusing me with someone that cares.

You wrote a reasoned discussion about a subject filled with propaganda and locked positions in your whole hemisphere; please give me people that don't care.

But, for Fuck's sake, keep a minimum of politeness -- especially in sensitive subjects like this. They are degenerated enough as they are before any keyboards are touched.

Edit: To be clear -- the f word was a bit of a joke, considering what I criticized. Enough of this, I've written all I can add.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com