HN folks, does every post about Twitter need to be made about the president? The unwarranted injection of politics into every single discussion is getting very, very tiring.
The article didn't mention him. He's not even in the top 25 most followed or active people on the site. Obama had more influence as #3! And yet, as I write this, every single comment in this damn thread mentions him. [1] Enough already! This is the first time I've wanted to flag an article for its comment section rather than the article itself.
This kind of comment, though surely well-intended, unfortunately doesn't push us in the right direction. The best move is to just post civilly and substantively on the topic at hand.
Edit: do flag unwarranted injections of politics, because you're right that we're not here for that either.
Given the comment score over the past few minutes, this is a contentious issue, and not one I'm willing to risk my flagging privileges (or other backend consequences like slowdowns or post throttles) for.
"Commenting substantively" about Twitter does nothing about the political flamebait that always winds up in threads about the subject, yet the only tool I have to combat it could blow up in my face.
Trump and Twitter are in many ways inseparable and at least tangentially relevant to the article. It's unique that a sitting president would utilize a social platform so prominently, that so many people would have the opportunity to engage with him directly. It's argued that Trump's uptick in Twitter usage has raised its overall visibility as well.
So, it's not unfair to bring him up. It's also not inherently political to do so.
> He's not even in the top 25 most followed or active people on the site. Obama had more influence as #3!
I think that's entirely the wrong metric. Obama used/uses Twitter to duplicate content that is being released as a press release, TV appearance, etc. etc.
Trump does not. His thoughts are "first on Twitter", and the combination of that plus the fact that he is the President of the United States means that he is an absolutely integral part of the Twitter story, whether you like it or not.
As of right now there are three posts that mention Trump: One that's down voted to the bottom of the page, one where it's just one out of three points being made, and the third is yours.
"The unwarranted injection of politics into every single discussion is getting very, very tiring."
Some folks won't be satisfied until everybody is clearly aware that they're deeply, DEEPLY unhappy with the 2016 election results.
This will continue for another three years, at which point things will change to how Candidate X is so much better, and we'll hear about Candidate X in everything. If Candidate X loses the 2020 election, expect a repeat of the current situation.
I don't think your parent's sentiment necessarily has anything to do with the results of the election. Even before Nov. 8 2016 there's been plenty of debate about how much politics should play a role in HN, even beyond what the guidelines.
This is not the first time a member has mentioned wanting less politics. It's perfectly legitimate to want to be able to discuss articles without having politics added to it. The current submission makes no mention of politics in general or Trump in particular. Given how much discussion of politics is going on in other threads, it's understandable to want the bar to to drag it in to be higher. How much of what is being said is new?
I based my post off of this part of the parent comment: " And yet, as I write this, every single comment in this damn thread mentions him."
And not only was that poster right, at the time it was written, it is a frigging epidemic everywhere right now. On HN, on Reddit, on every platform; if the topic at hand is not tightly focused and apolitical, somebody eventually will make a derogative Trump comment.
Some of it is purely for humor. Some of it is pure snark. Some of it is virtue signalling. But almost all of it is noise, not signal.
What this thread has taught me is that fighting this trend, even on HN, is not worth the time. The haters are going to hate, and there's no point suggesting that maybe it's not a good place for it, lest you want your comments greyed.
Trump uses Twitter, therefore any topic about Twitter is about Trump by proxy, or something.
Have you considered that this is a reflection of the way Donald Trump communicates? He injects his opinions on subjects he patently knows nothing about into public discourse on a regular basis, relying on startlement more than substance - like a shock jock on the radio. The social, political and governmental power he now wields is immense. I have to keep an eye on his tiny tweets of terror because random shit he posts there has the potential to directly impact my life in the short term.
This is precisely why lots of people were saying he should give up tweeting (at least on his personal account) once he took office, and rely on formal/official channels of communication for anything important. He has demonstrated a a preference for demonizing individuals and particular businesses and institutions, and where he leads, a mob of deplorables often follows.
You complain about being tired of hearing/seeing people talking about Donald Trump all the time, so presumably you feel unable to ignore it. It seems not to have occurred to you that people who dislike Trump are even more sick of hearing about and from him. Imagine being a Mexican person and hearing yourself and your family described as 'rapists, drug dealers and criminals' on an almost daily basis for the last 18 months every time you watch the news.
"You complain about being tired of hearing/seeing people talking about Donald Trump all the time, so presumably you feel unable to ignore it."
When noise drowns out signal, no amount of ignoring will help.
People being passive-aggressive about politics in a non-political venue are neither changing the political system nor contributing to the venue in which they comment.
The article didn't mention him. He's not even in the top 25 most followed or active people on the site. Obama had more influence as #3! And yet, as I write this, every single comment in this damn thread mentions him. [1] Enough already! This is the first time I've wanted to flag an article for its comment section rather than the article itself.
[1]: http://i.imgur.com/cHEV2ww.png