Hacker News Reader

Comment by acqq | Hacker News Reader

If it wasn't clear enough: your ethnicity, whether claimed or factual doesn't make your claims more or less valid.

The choice of names, however, reflects in this case a political side of a writer. Even if the cause is mere "autocorrect" I still claim the autocorrect sublimes your political views correctly, and I never claimed that you hide them. On the contrary, they can't be more obvious, inviting literal occupation: "I just hope NATO ... actually go all the way and occupies the country."

Inviting a war is a terrible position, good only for those who, ignoring all the bodies of the victims, profit from them. Long term, neither war inside own borders nor occupation resulted in the net benefit of the attacked and/or occupied nations. Any claims to the opposite stem from the specific political agenda, which I invite the readers to be aware of in discussions with political consequences.

View on HN

You are misstating their position. They said “If Serbia starts a war, I hope NATO goes all the way and finishes it”. Big emphasis on IF. The only party inviting a war in that scenario is the Serbian government.

> You are misstating their position

I'd say you are doing it to both his an mine.

> Big emphasis on IF

I don't see any conditional in that post AT ALL. The paragraph starts with the explicit invitation and also states the (false and, let's be clear, if targeted at most other ethnicities/nations, immediately recognized as profoundly racist) "reason": "I just hope NATO ... actually go all the way and occupies the country. That's the only way to neuter Serbia for a generation of two ..."

Put as a thought example Native Americans in these sentences and consider how it was "better" for them to be eliminated, and how a text of anonymous self-claimed "Native American" saying that sentence targeted at their own people would appear today.

NATO would only intervene if Serbia invades. I think that was clear in the original post. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.

I however think you can't cite any statement in that post directly containing that assumption, if it was "clear" to you it says more about your assumptions than about the actual content discussed.

The person who wrote the original post replied above saying that my interpretation of his post was correct. What other “proofs” do you need?

I'm simply not interested in person's later claims, the post does not contain any conditionals. That is exactly what I argue, let me repeat if it wasn't clear enough: if somebody "sees" them where they aren't it's due to their assumptions existing independently of what is actually written in the post.

Correct, thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com