201–210 of 311 posts
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/69582/denmark-moves-tow...
No opinion, just statement for your records.
This should not have been flagged. There's not even any flagged comments.
I don't know the rules for what does and doesn't get flagged. I tried to write it in a respectful way without resorting to personal attacks.
Personally, I didn't flag the article but I think it might be right to be flagged - just; I think you have discussed the issue calmly, but I find the article to be faux respectful and presenting itself as being neutral where it is not. To me the article reads as posturing and signalling, and using the headline (cancelling Hey) as a thin cover for discussing something else entirely (the blog post, the disagreements with it, and the political disagreement with DHH). Note that HN says anything off-topic should be flagged, and the definition for off-topic starts with: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime...". If it had been, I'm cancelling Hey.com due to revelations about the owners DHH , its cost me $x and was good and now I'm going to $y then I think it would be on-topic.
That all said; the topic you are really discussing is one that is very hard to have a reasonable conversation with people about. It has been unreasonably politicised, and is aggressively pursued as such; to a degree that distorts the basic facts and denies the real harms and impacts. One of my early roles involved physical security systems, and during it I encountered a large number of people suffering from related issues while the police both didn't have the power to resolve it and were not willing to wield the power they did have. I am deeply concerned about the widespread censoring of these discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people have flagged it simply because the topic attracts the kind of discussion hn usually tries to avoid. Guidelines: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. (To be clear, I'm not saying I think you did anything wrong)
Fair enough. If it's against the rules, I won't post things like this on hacker news anymore.
This whole article seems like a straw man. Chad seems to be arguing: 1. DHH thinks all gypsies are bad, therefor 2. DHH does not see Roma as individual people, therefor 3. DHH is a bad person. I read DHH's blog as: 1. It should still be illegal to camp in parks, therefor 2. People who do camp in parks should be housed, therefor 3. Foreigners who refuse housing should be deported.
If he said "Foreigners who refuse housing should be deported." I would agree. Can you show me where he said that? I read "gypsies should be deported"
One thing this post never does is actually meaningfully argue with the core idea of the post that so outraged them. Which is: If someone comes illegally to your country and ends up sleeping in parks, they should be deported. I don’t know if I agree with that but the post seems to take it for granted that any reasonable person cannot. To me this is more a fashion statement than an argument. Advocating deportations is…
That doesn't enrage me, in fact I agree with it. But no one in this story came illegally to Denmark. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. And I read DHH to be saying that more people than just the specific ones sleeping in parks should be deported.
"Well, my understanding of Denmark is that they also don't have the will to start doing mass deportations of EU citizens, and DHH is advocating to change that. " https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/69582/denmark-moves-tow... No opinion, just statement for your records.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He is calling for the deportation of illegal immigrants who sleep in parks. No, that's what this article is calling for. The complain they have is that DHH called for deporting the entire ethnic group independent of whether they're sleeping in parks.
DHH's blog post reads: >> When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. Looks like some of the controversy is whether "them" refers to "the gypsies" or "the gypsies who take over public spaces". It sounds genuinely ambiguous to me. Example A) "When wolves eat too many sheep, you shoot them." seems to advocate for shooting all wolves. Example B) "When adults abuse minors, you imprison them." presumably only r…
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them.
I think based on his choice of parallelism we can fairly guess he means it the wolf way. There's not a single sentence in his post that supports the other interpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't mention Hey or the cancellation anywhere after the PG paragraph.
Ah, I see, the post is about why , not how . Guess my language limits got me there. Still very hard to understand and I find hard to say it would be worth reading. Apart from the Gemini-like looking template.
It is sad that such a song and dance is required when anyone with half a brain can read the racism in DHH's post. Imagine a scenario that a black family moved into your neighborhood and started causing a bunch of problems. There are no other black people in the neighborhood. It should take you a picosecond to figure out which one of these is obviously racist and which isn't: "We need to remove the black people from o…