>Flagging on the other hand to me on a post as such and other attempts genuinely sadden me because I was only able to discover this flagged post because people wrote about this article in the post I built which has also promptly got flagged.
I find that annoying myself. However, at the suggestion of another user, I began looking at https://news.ycombinator.com/active instead of the front page.
The "active" page (as its name implies) includes the most active discussions regardless of whether or not they've been flagged.
I find it to be a much better place to find stuff to discuss.
On top of these methods, I will often surface content and discussion by looking at:
- the search page for the last 24H, with a list of both "title" keywords and "comment" keywords, based on how many results are appearing
- the comment histories of folks I have enjoyed.
I do this by modifying the query string in the URL field.
I am quite glad that these modes of finding content on the site take a little effort- I already have a 180min time out and it's not the healthiest way to try and find my news. This is, fortunately, the only social media site I am actively writing responses on, other than some message boards.
And I don't try to book mark my way through those keywords- I just have a set of stuff I find in comment threads I find interesting memorized and look for those threads ("measles", "salvador", "venazuela", "flock").
But I find it a lot easier to find general news and conversations I am curious about using that method.
>Strongly worded letters to one's Congressperson are the equivalent to "thoughts and prayers". It doesn't matter how just (you think) your cause is; it will never achieve anything.
Your assertion isn't supported by, well, anything. The problem is that constituents think they can't affect their representatives' positions. They can.[0][1] Especially if there's a concerted effort to do so.
For every constituent who writes/calls/emails, there are at least a half-dozen more who feel the same way.
The problem isn't that contacting your representatives isn't effective, it's that by not doing so, you're ceding power to those that do.
>It saddens me that your rather innocuous comment has been down-voted so aggressively.
Despite the ridiculous narrative that Obama and Biden were "bringing in illegals en masse to vote for Democrats," if you look at the actual numbers, it's not surprising that folks are down-voting that comment.
Mostly because those previous administrations (Obama and Biden) managed to deport many more undocumented folks than either this or the previous Trump administration, without the thuggery, violence and murder we're seeing now.
I'd note that even without the gratuitous violence and intimidation, folks were also protesting Obama's and Biden's ICE activities.
Because the real issue around immigration in the US is that our system is broken and we haven't constructively addressed those problems for nearly 40 years.
So no. I'm not surprised by the down-votes because there's nuance that's being glossed over and, while doing so, giving violent thugs a pass by claiming that they're "enforcing the law," even though they're doing a crap job while harming our citizens, legal residents and helping to destroy what's left of our civil society.
I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.
It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.
>It's like you didn't see where I agree that current enforcement is too aggressive. Why are you writing in a tone that implies we disagree when we agree? This is the sort of thing that confuses me.
I combined my response to your comment[0] and its parent[1], as I mentioned:
I'm not pushing any "broader political narrative" either. Just pointing out a
few things not mentioned in your or GP's comments.
Rather than disagreeing with you, I was attempting to add nuance and additional substance. As the site guidelines[2] recommend:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
You appear to have assumed bad faith on my part. Why is that? Was I not clear enough? What could I have added to the above to be clearer?
> the dataset includes names, work emails, phone numbers, job roles, and other employment details for frontline agents and support staff—a level of detail that has alarmed officials concerned about the safety and privacy of federal employees and their families
Worth noting that all of the information specified is public information and the people it concerns are public officials.
>The best we can do for the dead is remember them as they were, good and bad, not demonize them nor write hagiographies for them
I agree with your conclusion, but not with your premise.
We can't "do" anything for the dead. They're dead. What's more, since they're dead they don't care what we do or say because they're, you know, dead.
Anything we might do or say in reference to dead folks is for the benefit of the living and has nothing to do with the dead.
That said, you're absolutely right. We should remember folks for who they were -- warts and all -- to give the living perspective both on the dead and the dead past.
>As others pointed, the story of human civilization is one long arc of going against our base animal instincts in order to build a society that benefits everyone.
I'd add that it's cooperation and the ability to moderate impulsive behavior that, over the long term, differentiates us from our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee.
If we were just our base instincts and nothing more, we wouldn't be having this conversation as we'd likely have died out, because our ability to accept and work together with each other allowed us to flourish despite the threats of predation, climate change, natural disasters and other challenges.
As such, making the argument that we're "hardwired" to hate and fear our fellow humans doesn't make sense, whether that argument is an intellectual one or an evolutionary one.
I feel sorry for folks who feel so isolated that they can't understand just how closely related we all are. It must be quite lonely.
>...When he was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer, he went to every dubious healer my grandmother could find...He was never right wing.
Desperation isn't partisan, friend.
My father was diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer and died from its ravages too. He participated in clinical trials and did everything medically reasonable to save himself. None of it worked, and when the treatments came to an end, he faced his death with grace and dignity. I've often thought that if I was in a similar situation, I'd be happy to be half as courageous as he was.
Other folks I've seen have been more along the "freak out" axis and have fallen apart, sought out any treatment regardless of efficacy (or sanity), or both, in order to stave off their fear.
None of that is partisan. All of that is sad.
If Scott Adams died from his cancer's advance, he died a slow, painful (opioids notwithstanding) death which included numerous indignities and, at the end, a lack of awareness that, had he been conscious of it, would likely have driven him mad.
That's what's sad. No one, not even Scott Adams, should suffer and die that way. How folks meet death, especially one as grueling and painful as cancer eating your central nervous system, isn't a partisan thing.
And while I'm not a fan of his later incarnations, his brief cameo here[0] was quite amusing.
Good question. Which is likely another reason for more ticket cancellations[0].
[0] https://www.financialexpress.com/sports/fifa-calls-for-emerg...
reply