This is a really interesting comment for a number of reasons that all happen to support my original claim that Drew is mistaken.
"it just seems transparent that you have a right wing worldview" - based on a single opinion about whether an alternative explanation for a hand gesture could be plausible? That you feel you know me well enough to draw this conclusion from a single sentence in a reply to a comment and announce it, as if you're branding me with shame, is part of the problem with politics here on HN, and in my opinion is strong evidence against Drew's claim in his post. A more constructive comment would engage with the substance of the reply, not the reactionary labeling of its author.
"but don't wanna say it openly coz they are openly racist and fascistic now." You've got the result right, but not the motivation. You're on to something: people who might hold these views don't want to say it openly ON HN because this is the reaction they will receive. Not debate, not even constructive pushback: just tired accusations of being in league with racists and fascists.
Your comment exemplifies the current problem with political discussions on this site: any non-mainstream (and that's this weird combination of civil-libertarian and progressive; see one of my other replies for more) viewpoint automatically earns the poster some derogatory label. Who would want to engage in discussion when this is the inevitable result? Ad hominem comments like yours stifle discussion instead of promoting it, leaving only those who agree with your views in the thread.
This right here is what gets us echo chambers.
"it just seems transparent that you have a right wing worldview" - based on a single opinion about whether an alternative explanation for a hand gesture could be plausible? That you feel you know me well enough to draw this conclusion from a single sentence in a reply to a comment and announce it, as if you're branding me with shame, is part of the problem with politics here on HN, and in my opinion is strong evidence against Drew's claim in his post. A more constructive comment would engage with the substance of the reply, not the reactionary labeling of its author.
"but don't wanna say it openly coz they are openly racist and fascistic now." You've got the result right, but not the motivation. You're on to something: people who might hold these views don't want to say it openly ON HN because this is the reaction they will receive. Not debate, not even constructive pushback: just tired accusations of being in league with racists and fascists.
Your comment exemplifies the current problem with political discussions on this site: any non-mainstream (and that's this weird combination of civil-libertarian and progressive; see one of my other replies for more) viewpoint automatically earns the poster some derogatory label. Who would want to engage in discussion when this is the inevitable result? Ad hominem comments like yours stifle discussion instead of promoting it, leaving only those who agree with your views in the thread.
This right here is what gets us echo chambers.