zlacker

is it a malignant comment to point out that the royalty is a malignant influence on the United Kingdom?

>>habnds+(OP)
Why is it malignant? Monarchy is the foundation of the whole system. It goes from the top all the way from the bottom. That's like saying blood is a malignant influence on the body.

>>glchee+J2
Please don't take HN threads further into predictable, generic flamewar. It's tedious, and therefore off topic. The site guidelines ask commenters in several different ways not to do this.

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

>>habnds+(OP)
The point I made was not really about monarchy, but about comment quality on HN. Low-information, high-indignation comments—such as repetition of well-worn political points—is the classic low-quality case that we're most hoping to avoid here. Especially because they tend to evoke even worse from others.

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

>>glchee+J2
this strikes me as a malignant comment for sure

>>dang+Xd
if you has said something like "we're not interested in this thread turning into another opportunity to litigate the pro's and cons of the monarchy" I would agree with you.

But specifically saying not to comment negatively while allowing positive comments on what is clearly a hotly contested issue is ridiculous.

>>habnds+6k
I was talking about empty positive comments like "RIP". (or, in a different context, "thanks" or "congratulations" - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

Perhaps I should take bit out as it obviously wasn't clear enough.

>>glchee+J2
The monarchy has utterly usurped UK's "democracy" and continues to use its powers to oppress innocent human beings across the world. The crown regularly interferes in the democratic machinations of the UK.

The fact that the UK doesn't have the social capital to prosecute their known, actual war criminals - because they are factually protected by the crown - should be a clue of the malignant effect of the monarchy, in itself.