zlacker

>>xbar+(OP)
I really hoped that a submission on ICJ ruling will pass the aggressive flagging. At least hoped that dang will keep his promise about allowing a submission about the case. This one could be it. I understand that once allowed there will be trove of hard liners will make it hell to moderate. But being difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss a potential genocide in a making in front of our eyes.

>>Mandai+Ws
EDIT: The title has been changed since and the discussion has been unflagged

The problem is that this is such a partisan issue than partisanship can be perceived in the smallest of details.

As someone who was staunchly pro-palestinian but as of recently came to have a more informed and I hope a more nuanced view of the whole situation, I can't help to see the title as potentially misleading :

Is the ICJ saying to prevent the Genocide (i.e recognizes that a genocide is happening) or to prevent a potential genocide (that is it believes the situation could escalate towards a genocide) ?

From what I have read this is the second option, so I believe the title could be misleading. The more a topic has a loaded emotional and symbolic value, the more careful the wording must be.

Also I remember how annoying it was that people did not share my indignation and how I perceived such carefulness as a form of voluntary blindness.

>>cassep+sv
Isn't this the kind of discussion we should be having though? Why flag it?

>>smooth+2z
This is Hacker News. Technology, science, business, not politics and certainly not geopolitics.

There are many discussions worth having, not all discussions worth having should be on HN.

>>solati+nP
This of course comes up a lot, but the answer has been stable for many years. See >>39146184 for more information.