Hacker News Reader

Comment by rizoma_dev | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

what issues have you found with the text of the article that makes it unsuitable to be posted here? I've never heard of this publication, but found the article to be an excellent read. I only had vaguely heard about the "mass graves" situation months and months ago and was completely unaware that no bodies have actually been found. this article does a great job of presenting this information, contrasting it with the blatantly false NYT reporting on the subject, and tying the whole thing together with warnings about media-fueled moral panic mass hysteria, which is a pretty important topic to learn more about these days.

I found the article well-reasoned and level-headed, completely free of political extremism of any sort.

what is the reason for why I'm supposed to hate this publication, so I know better next time to go into reading an article from it with the Consensus-Approved Morally-Correct Set of Preconceived Biases?

If you are coming at this from a neutral angle - please be aware that no bodies have been physically found but also that no bodies have not been physically found. There is radar evidence of bodies buried near the school that remains un-refuted, there was a decision not to exhume the graves out of respect.

By the same line of reasoning used in this article my grandmother might still be alive - sure we all went to a funeral but it was closed casket and very few attendees saw the body... but I can take you to the grave stone and probably dig up a few pictures of the service.

These techniques are not 100% reliable but they are very strong indicators - especially when seen en-masse as they were observed at this site - it is extremely unlikely the ground soil composition is due to any sort of a natural cause, but it is possible that something else is buried in the ground... in human shaped holes, at regular intervals.

Imagine you find an article on Sputnik talking about The Bucha massacre and in a well written piece presented evidences that it was all made up by Western Media (“contrasting it with the blatantly false NYT reporting on the subject”) should you believe it?

But maybe you're not aware of the fact that Sputnik is a Kremlin propaganda platform and you don't see the problem with the well-argued point the author is making.

You see what I mean?

You admit not knowing Quillette, but is a well-known alt-right website who notoriously don't care about facts and as such their content is no more reliable than Putin's Sputnik.

It's not about “Consensus-Approved Morally-Correct Set of Preconceived Biases”, it's about not sharing website who have made sharing blatant lies to push their political agenda their main business.

> You admit not knowing Quillette, but is a well-known alt-right website who notoriously don't care about facts and as such their content is no more reliable than Putin's Sputnik.

As a media outlet, Quillette is a valid target of criticism but these sorts of vague slurs are easily debunked with a modicum[1] of research[2].

If you don't like the story, criticise the story.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette#Reception

[2] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/quillette-media-bias

unfortunately, these absurd analogies and politico-ideological compliance tests do nothing to convince me of your worldview—you'll have to do better than that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com