I find your comment moronic and your revisionist history and head in-the sand MSNBC watching approach equally childish. How’s that for self-evident?

Trump’s unique awfulness in American and world history is indeed self evident and in forty year’s time nobody will ever admit to having voted for him, including you.

Trump is an awful character, but equating him to the worst villains of history (at this point in time) is dishonest and hyperbolistic. Also, assuming you know who I voted for is equally silly.

Yes, he's certainly one of the worst villains in history already. Maybe not if you're Chinese, he's certainly a hero then. But if you believe in Western civilisation, then he is one of the worst in human history for sure. If you hate Western civilisation then you're right he was great.

> Also, assuming you know who I voted for is equally silly.

Yes, there we go, nobody voted for Trump ;)

"Biden was just as bad as Trump"

"Trump is just being honest"

"Trump is evil yes but so are all politicians but at least Trump is honest"

are basically brain dead takes from people to dishonest to admit they are basically OK with Trump. It's not true that Trump is the same as the rest. He is obviously worse than previous leaders.

Anyway you've said elsewhere you don't even believe the president is in control so in any case at bets your views are extremely outside of what is generally considered mainstream.

I'm sure you could express that viewpoint without what come across as deeply personal swipes.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don’t know what could possess someone to say Biden was just as bad as trump. It’s self evidently false

They mention that its self evidence but there is genuine evidence for this as well (which report do you want?) and its a fact and not deeply personal swipes.

Your comment on the other hand feels like not addressing the main points of what the GP said and much more like a smokescreen to this.

Have you read the guidelines for this site (see link).

If users, particularly green accounts, have opinions then they are encouraged to express them without snark directed toward the person they are replying to.

My comment addresses following the guidelines.

Well I guess its understable that you might think its snark partially perhaps because of the fact that they said self evidence.

I do understand what you are trying to say but their point still stands in my opinion and if you want me to provide facts from real studies indicating what they mention as self evidence. I am more than happy to do so to have a more nuanced but still civil discussion.

but also the fact is that most of such rules kind of (soft break) during times of chaos as such and I do know that you understand it as well.

You could've also done a better job trying to explain why you feel its snarky as I had assumed that you are trying to show the rules in case any uncomfortable facts comes up (which I hope you aren't doing as my civil response might go to waste in that case)

Could you explain to whom you believe these two snippets

> sounds like the conspiratorial ramblings of someone who desperately wants to seem in the know.

> But just ends up looking like a moron.

are tangentially directed towards ?

Do you believe that these are aligned with the HN guidelines?

I am not saying that they are aligned with HN guidelines but I am saying that their core message was still valid (although I agree that perhaps it was written in bad way) & they don't really fit the ideal HN guidelines

I agree with you and want to say that we shouldn't call people morons for voting for trump (unless they are voting because of their biases towards a particular race in which we can agree that that's bad) but rather the fact to align them towards and pointing them to real facts and showing the facts that politics can change and its not as core identity and they should look at the facts (as evidenced by many surveys one of which you showed in another tangential post as a comment and I agree with that) and try to do something about it (this is the core part I believe so where the people should try to do something when they are impacted against)

I agree we shouldn't use uncivil comments to people we don't align with partially because that still raises the us vs them dynamic which should be stopped in the first place and comments blanket calling morons does feel like increasing that tension

They should've done a better job giving more facts and being more civil so yeah I can agree with that but that being said, I still believe that what they are saying has true merit and can and should be rephrased in better words for the masses to capture to liberate themselves from echo-chamber related noises

My best advice would be to heed the guidelines and make the best case you can for whatever opinion you have without sliding into snark.

That frees me from having to choose between [flagging] and [dead]'ing your comments or reminding you of the guidelines.

Agreed.