> Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.
Wut? Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics. He said nothing about the politics of Cruz, he compared the Senator shifting blame onto his kids with this CEO blaming an intern. Don’t be like that.
> Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics
Of course it is, why would you think otherwise? By calling out a particular politician by name, especially a controversial one, OP introduced a political slant to the discussion. Could just as easily have said "this is a problem we commonly see with politicians, or other people in leadership positions" without calling a particular one out.
> Don’t be like that.
Like what, exactly? OP made a comment, and when it started to go grey he maligned the HN commentariat as a whole as being full of lazy people. All I did was help him understand what aspect of his comment was the likely trigger for the downvotes. HN by and large does not like political discussions, it's even right there in the moderation rules.
Thank you for pointing this out - it's unfortunate that people can be immediately triggered to react after simply seeing a name that prevents/blocks them from continuing on to understand or critically think to understand what's actually said; it's definitely a sign of the times and state of our health and our thinking ability as a society.
This is uncharitable. First, you assume people were offended (and you used the loaded term 'triggered' to describe it). Then you go on to assume this means that society must be degrading, because so many people are losing their ability to think (the implication being that you are not part of that group).
A much simpler explanation is that people who read and comment on HN do not want to see every conversation degenerate into yet another political fistfight, since it seems to have infected every other part of our lives. One of the core values of this community is that we mostly manage to avoid that.
My perspective is valid, you've done nothing to prove it's not - other than putting your own "much simpler explanation;" where you're also making assumptions. Hope you enjoyed the thought exercise writing out your reply.
It's interesting how I can reference, with no personal opinion attached to it, a factual, recent situation that's comparable to the thread - about a well-known person who happens to be a politician - happens to be a politician, and as you said, because you're exhausted of hearing about them, you'd prefer they be censored/avoided in conversation. It's interesting to say the least.
P.S. Triggered is a valid word, I used it in the correct context - and you were in fact triggered by using it and are trying to gate keep its use.
What you are doing here is a pretty good real world demonstration of Russell conjugations. Also very non-productive, so I don't think there is any reason to try continuing the discussion. Have a great day!
Re: Russel conjugations - there was no "spin" to anything I said, I stated facts that were neutral - yes, that neutrality which is certainly a better light than you're appearing to believe Ted Cruz deserves (which has nothing to do with my own perception of him - it's your own belief or reaction you're applying to the facts). There is a difference - and if you read the examples at Google for searching "what is russell conjugation" - https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ - then none of them fit what I said because I was just listing fact, so my points still stand and I wasn't using any fallacies or bad faith arguments. I won't analysis the conversation further because it'll become inflammatory. I'd love for you to show exactly where I am applying bias to the facts I listed.
Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.