> Well, I interpreted it differently.
Congratulations, you have political opinions. Despite your claims elsewhere, you’re not “politically neutral.” Nor do you believe, in practice, that political opinions do not belong on HN.
Congratulations, you have political opinions. Despite your claims elsewhere, you’re not “politically neutral.” Nor do you believe, in practice, that political opinions do not belong on HN.
Your underlying point is correct of course, but can you please make your substantive points without snark, and avoid the flamewar style? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I should mention though that I wasn't making a point about your comment (which I haven't really read) and certainly not about you personally. Rather, it's a general observation that has come up many times over the years.
sheafification's reply was specifically to me and specifically personal. (Every sentence was directed at me - not something that I wrote.) There was no "general observation" that I can see in his reply. For the record, here is his reply in its entirety:
> Congratulations, you have political opinions. Despite your claims elsewhere, you’re not “politically neutral.” Nor do you believe, in practice, that political opinions do not belong on HN.
Where is the "general observation that has come up many times over the years"? What part of this response read as "correct" to you, and why?
From my reading, it was an ad hominem generalization based on a flawed understanding of my previous post designed to dismiss my opinions based on some perceived contradiction. What about this is "correct"?
The underlying point, as I understand it, is that it's not possible to be "politically neutral" or "apolitical" because what counts as "political" is itself politically contested. This is an argument that people often make in discussions like this—it has come up countless times over the years—so I was pattern-matching in interpreting the GP comment that way.
FWIW, although I happen to agree with that claim in general, I disagree with the consequences people usually try to derive from it (for example, that it is necessary to choose a single political position from which to moderate a site like this one).
None of that is pertinent to the moderation issue, though, which is that if people are going to make points like this in HN threads, they need to do it without snark, personal attack, or other flamewar devices. My moderation reply was about that, not "is it possible to be politically neutral or not"—it would be the same regardless of topic. I just prefaced it in this case with "your underlying point is correct of course" because (1) I like to say something to connect with the person I'm replying to, if I can*; and (2) it makes the "you're only moderating this because you disagree with my opinion" objection a tad less likely.
(* which equally includes you, of course!)
Thanks for flagging the personal attack.