471–480 of 1001 posts
The era of TV-talk shows is already ending, so it's easy for companies to agree to censorship. These moves just quicken the end of the talk-show era. More profitable and successful shows seem to be immune for now, and South Park goes harder than ever.
I thought South Park had their Charlie Kirk episode pulled?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that Kimmel's job was speech. He had a microphone -- and depended upon that (supposedly God-given) freedom of speech to perform that job. If he lost that job due to something that right didn't guarantee, then I'd understand. His dismissal's cause had nothing to do with a failure on his part. Instead we now have the government, specifically concerned with his criticisms of it, effectuating this block of Kimmel'…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, hear me out, books are pretty great! Lots of people say things like "I know I should read, but it's this whole thing ..." and then you find out they've been stuck on page 3 of Wuthering Heights for forty years, because someone convinced them they ought to be reading that, and it's haunted them from their night-stand ever since. Don't let anyone tell you what to read, pick up something that sounds fun to you, and…
Wow… sounds like you’ve been reading my diary! If I pick something up and it sucks, I feel bad stopping and force myself to finish it (which will take 8 months because I hate it). And that stops any reading progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was well known before Kimmel made his comments that the shooter was in a romantic relationship with a trans woman. Having said that, even if he did not know about that relationship it was irresponsible of Kimmel to repeat rumors he could not have known were true that the shooter was maga.
Except your premise is incorrect. Kimmel did not repeat rumors, he asserted that the political affiliations were unknown. edit: He asserted the "MAGA gang" trying to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson, which is true. It does not mean Kimmel views Robinson as "MAGA".
I am largely neutral on this particular assassination, as I knew almost nothing about Mr. Kirk prior to his departure (just name recognition & basic political associations). But I do think, after decades of reflection, that comedians are correct when they point out that stereotypical humor shouldn't be off limits to any performer (of any background/color), but is... e.g. Owen Benjamin, Chappelle, Seinfeld .
> I am largely neutral on this particular assassination, as I knew almost nothing about Mr. Kirk prior to his departure (just name recognition & basic political associations). This seems confusing to me. The default "neutral" position on any murder, most of all when you don't know much about the victim, is that murder is a horrible thing, is it not? Is that what you mean, or do you mean you aren't sure if this was go…
Murderers walk freely among you, and we're not all bad people. A few good people earn their legal kills.
A healthy society would encourage any speech which could reduce divisiveness (e.g. comments on Mr. Kirk, without retribution) — yet ours thrives on division, getting people to hate better with bigger hearts.
¢¢
"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hacker news moderation does not like political stories. it's explicitly in the guidelines of what not to post: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." it is of course in the interests of billionaire-owned companies like YC to keep the community all about "hacking" and "getting VC money" and away from rightfully discussing the most alarming period in the US' history since the Civil War. because hacke…
I spent half the day yesterday explaining and defending why HN does allow certain political stories (or stories with political overlap). If you missed that, I understand—no one sees everything that gets posted here, including us. I just mention it because it's odd, if familiar, to be answering opposing criticisms at more or less the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We start by rejecting the cartoon labels of "left" and "right" as if all conservatives or all liberals believe the same things and think the same way. The left/right division is a longstanding technique intended to keep us divided. The reality is that outside of the actual extremists, liberals and conservatives agree on 80% of everything. We can, and need to, start there. We are all Americans and have to realize that…
It's astonishing how bad the US political apparatus is at making progress even on matters that easily fall within that 80%, though— healthcare reform, childcare, higher education, common sense gun laws, infrastructure investments. All of this stuff should be a slam dunk to implement with broad coalitions no matter who holds which branches, and yet it's all been basically gridlocked for decades, and instead it's never…
Post Nixon the government really just got captured and paralyzed and so a generation has grown up not understanding that this is a deliberately broken government, not how a government can operate. Instead people have been raised to think that all government is just ineffective and naturally broken. The only people who actually get it are the subset of Americans who have traveled or lived overseas for some time. As of 2023 only about half of Americans have a passport so there is a large chunk that haven't seen anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except your premise is incorrect. Kimmel did not repeat rumors, he asserted that the political affiliations were unknown. edit: He asserted the "MAGA gang" trying to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson, which is true. It does not mean Kimmel views Robinson as "MAGA".
He did not assert they were unknown: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them ,” Kimmel said in his Sept. 15 monologue.
I added an edit after re-reading the comments.
This is the reaction from the part of the political consciousness that just realized it/its children are not safe anywhere. They're going to continue to use this as a justification for retaliation. You have to realize that the correct answer to this is, "conversions not killings" but the uppity software developer, "middle class" either needs to mobilize itself or the next wave is you getting fired from your dev job b…
But it's already like this. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have survived in tech if people knew I was a conservative. I've always felt like I would be punished if people knew.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent half the day yesterday explaining and defending why HN does allow certain political stories (or stories with political overlap). If you missed that, I understand—no one sees everything that gets posted here, including us. I just mention it because it's odd, if familiar, to be answering opposing criticisms at more or less the same time.
Point taken ! I'm sure you know my opinion here is partially from your criticism of my posts being "inflammatory" some time ago. Real things happening all day long right now are unfortunately inflammatory. We have a president literally making decisions based on how much pain and terror they will cause to his chosen Boogeyman, "the libs".
Every user has their own list of which stories ought to clear the bar for frontpage representation, and it's impossible to include them all. Frontpage space is the scarcest resource that HN has (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). As a result, there's no HN reader who gets the frontpage they want, including us. This is baked into the fundamentals of how the site is designed, unless and until we start customizing the frontpage per user preferences.
There's another important aspect that I wrote about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306 and still haven't explained very well. In that post it's called "the temporal decay of interestingness in any sequence of related stories"—a clumsy phrase—but if you follow the argument, the conclusion it's impossible to prioritize political stories by importance on HN, even if everyone were to agree about what the important stories actually are.