A white Christian ethno-state with strict hierarchies... no that sounds pretty terrible.
Why? Is a flatter, more pluralistic system of governance better? What's the reasoning behind that and, more importantly, what actual arguments can be put forth in support of your statement?
I'd love to hear the reasoned arguments in support of either of those. What's more, it would be great to hear other alternatives too.
As a general rule, folks here are fairly well educated and able to express nuanced viewpoints. Let's hear those -- not just one liners which are meant to (but don't) stand in for reasoned arguments.
Perhaps a better direction would be to identify business, technology and science drivers that would, presumably, be impacted by such different models of governance -- both positively and negatively.
Especially since the viability of the "tech" industry is quite dependent on those drivers.
The point, at least in my mind, of HN isn't just to express one's support/solidarity with a particular point of view, whether that be with knee-jerk downvotes (did you even read what I wrote?) because I'd like to see more than shallow, one-line dismissals of anything, whether it supports or rejects[0][1] whatever thesis folks perceive is being presented.
I'd much rather see actual arguments on all sides, whether I find them reprehensible or not. We're mostly adults here, so we should be able to read and understand a variety of viewpoints, when we support them or even (especially) when we adamantly oppose them.
This makes for better discussions, better discourse and a better understanding of those with whom we agree as well as those with whom we disagree -- no matter how repugnant we may find the latter's viewpoints.
So feel free to vote me down because I didn't just take a vapid one liner as a good response. Check my posting history and you'll find that I think a Christian Ethno state is a bad idea -- for a whole host of reasons -- but I submitted TFA to spark real discussion and substantive arguments, not to pat myself on the back for being so smart and enlightened.
If substantive discussion isn't what you're here for, why are you here?
The problem with devil's advocacy is that it can be a time-waster. One can play devil's advocate forever on any nontrivial issue. There is no point at which you have to concede the argument. If you suspect that the advocate isn't being sincere, many people will object to the potential time sink.
Effectively, you've proposed a game, and nobody wants to play. The downvotes indicate that others wish to avoid the potential threadjack. To put it another way: they don't believe that it can be substantive discussion, at least not in this forum.
There are reddit forums where you'll find people better qualified to present the position opposite yours.
Except I am. And I did[0]. Asking others to do so as well isn't too much to ask is it?
>There are reddit forums where you'll find people better qualified to present the position opposite yours.
Are there? I wouldn't know. Nor am I interested to find out.