You're usually not lazy in your replies - maybe you're projecting and actually proved his point but are on his side?
It's him and commenters like you who are doing being lazy and feeling impulsive to post immature flamewar level comments.
Do you care his responses included ad hominem, straw mans, and don't actually counter my arguments but talk around them?
I wonder how biased you are around the topic.
And care to actually respond to support your claim by referencing his unsupported claims, and pull in the specifics from my comment that somehow support his claims? Don't think you can.
I consider your post a prime example of what I'm talking about rather than an astonishing refutation. A bog standard, off-the-shelf "how dare you not turn every single conversation on the internet to this important issue" reply. I could have written that in my sleep, and about any number of issues. How dare you try to turn the conversation away from whatever my opinion is about the Ukraine to distract us with this Israel stuff? I can reel off a dozen issues that I could copy and paste your message about with just a bit of string replacement.
There is no value offered by the HN community itself to argue about this. Such value as the HN community offers is precisely when it is not discussing the same things as everyone else.
It also has a false premise; the prosecutor has not, per the announcement, sought genocide charges (under Article 6 of the Rome Statute) against any of the named individuals, but instead Article 7 (crimes against humanity) and Article 8 (war crimes) charges.
It's ad hominem while him being egotistical at the same time - him claiming it's low effort-value, etc.
He also didn't counter any arguments of mine specifically.
What exactly was rude with it? I'm shocked to see these quick comments by you. Cite specifically what was rude that I said.
His ad hominem was certainly "rude" - but I'm curious what you think I said was rude, or if in fact you're coddling him who willingly engaged - and claimed what I said was lazy-so easy that he could do it in his sleep; he's claiming he can crank out what I said as if it's nothing, so what does or could that insinuate in your eyes?
I look forward to seeing what language you consider rude.
"HN has nothing unique to add to this conversation" is the opposite of any sort of claim of HN exceptionalism. It is you who are insisting that there must be some sort of amazing special unique perspective that means we must discuss on HN despite it generally being off topic.
The rhetoric and general level of insulting insinuation and personal attacks being deployed in this thread continues to demonstrate my claims that there is nothing special HN has to offer, not even so much as "a generally higher level of respect" or anything like that. There's no difference to a conversation here than anywhere else, which means you may as well have that conversation in the thousands or millions of other places to have it.
Also, I'm out. I've made my point here. Feel free to continue lobbing accusations and insinuations at me to continue proving my point.
> There is no value offered by the HN community itself to argue about this.
The HN community is a very nerdy bunch. There are lawyers among us, experts or knowledgeable enthusiasts in International Humanitarian Law. I mean I don’t think it is unlikely that someone here works (or has worked) for a firm or an institution which was consulted before this warrant was recommended.
The ongoing genocide is also highly relevant to the HN as much of the tech use in our job or hobbies, and even contribute to, is being used as a weapon in the ongoing genocide.
There has also been news of tech workers being specifically targeted in the ongoing genocide, our industrial comrades who may no longer be with us, some of which no doubt had HN accounts. When this news was submitted, it too was flagged (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39738469)
The censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus is still powerful and distributed, and will continue to try to move the narrative to support the beliefs they've been deeply engrained with over multiple generations. The war for free speech and countering suppression is arguably only just beginning.
And as Jordan Peterson said in his Beyond Order book - "intelligent ideologues are the most dangerous because they've really convinced themselves they're right."
Most of the mainstream platforms have been captured and heavily influenced due to outweighed power that only a handful of users can apply to manipulate how much exposure certain content and comments get; Twitter-X being in Elon Musk's hands at least have stopped fascists governments from the world in at least an incognito fashion censoring-suppression certain narratives of truth they don't want the population becoming the wiser on.
From the site guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
Larger than that: HN is for curious, thoughtful discussion. This topic is not going to give rise to a curious, thoughtful conversation. So, no matter how much you want to discuss it, this isn't the place.
