Hacker News Reader

Comment by notavalleyman | Hacker News Reader

I clicked flag. It's not suppression. Actually your knee-jerk "suppression" claim is pointing in the direction of why I clicked flag.

It's because people are unable to handle these topics without delving into conspiracy theories.

You had two paths you could have gone down.

Path one - it's active suppression, which means mens rea, which means someone is out there silencing me, which means a conspiracy is active, to shut down criticism of Israel. Which means the Elders of Zion are at it again.

Path two - hn users have clicked flag, so it's flagged

Why did you choose path one? What about this topic is breaking peoples' brains so badly? That's why I clicked it. I don't want hn users to verbalise their anti-jewish theories.

View on HN

100%. Contentious political discussion is supposed to be something we avoid on HN.

do emacs vs vim uncontentiously.

Or Tabs versus Spaces.

"I deliberately suppressed this discussion and any claims of the discussion being suppressed are the reason I suppressed it and are also conspiracy theories and not real, even though I did suppress it."

ya uh... ok

It's because people are unable to handle these topics without delving into conspiracy theories.

That's not a reason to flag a submission, that's a reason not to read the discussion.

An article whose follow-on discussion is mostly offtopic conspiracy theories (which they were) ought not to be here, imo, but maybe I'm wrong on the guideline etiquette

> Path one - it's active suppression, which means mens rea, which means someone is out there silencing me, which means a conspiracy is active, to shut down criticism of Israel. Which means the Elders of Zion are at it again.

What a load of bullshit. "Anyone who thinks users are flagging this submission in deliberate bad faith must also believe xyz conspiracy theory"

The user I was replying to wrote

> This kind of discussion is suppressed on HN

Typically people wouldn't use "suppressed" to mean: "there are disconnected users of this website who are, without coordination, independently flagging this submission in deliberate bad faith".

Typically "suppression" would refer to a coordinated deliberate act.

So I was simply replying to the most common interpretation of the user's words.

I understood them to be saying that a deliberate (and not accidental) attempt is being made to prevent "this kind of discussion" from happening.

You literally suppressed the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com