This is a very easy exercise: instead of cowering while letting other people take risks in his name, President Trump walks over to the Capitol. With him at the head of the column, many more people storm the building (the Capitol police likely don't put up a fight because nobody told them to fight the President), they occupy the building and take representatives hostage. At this point in time there is no longer a democracy in the US. What happens after that is anybody's guess; by my lights, probably the military leaders don't the President, their troops mostly follow their orders, they retake the Capitol, restore power to Congress, and install Pence as President, followed by democracy being restored not long after by a quick 25th amendment or impeachment and removal. But it would be plausible that some number of the military's leaders choose to back the President instead, or that an insufficient number of the troops follow their orders, resulting in either a successful coup or a protracted civil war.
The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice.
This is a legitimately good description of an arguably plausible (but still plausible!) scenario. But I must note that democracy is not lost in this scenario...unless you'd like to explain:
> At this point in time there is no longer a democracy in the US.
If we were to attach a debugger and step through the code, what state (variables and their values) would represent a valid scenario of democracy no longer existing in the United States? Or I suppose we could just look at the implementation of IsDemocracy(), assuming the designer of this shitty simulation is reasonably organized.
> The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice.
Well, that and other things that you haven't considered.
I don't say these things because I think these morons are righteous, or Trump is a good president, or because I think this event is insignificant, but the opposite: I think this scenario is extremely significant - so significant that I suggest we discuss it with the same rigorous precision that is usually reserved only for discussing topics like computer programming. I think a decent argument could be made that the welfare of the country inside of which we write computer code should command at least as much respect during conversations (even if begrudged) as we enthusiastically heap upon coding arguments.
But of course, this is just my opinion. And to be fair, if shit really does ever hit the fan, most everyone in this forum is well off enough to get the hell out of dodge to some other country that hasn't gone down the drain, where we can start the process all over again.
It looks like you've been using this site primarily for political battle. That's not what HN is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it (regardless of their politics). Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing this.
> All: I know this is a little late, but those of you posting ideological flamewar comments to this thread are breaking the site guidelines. We're trying to avoid hellfire here, and we're banning accounts that feed it. Please don't feed it.
> HN is not for all types of discussion. It is specifically for curious conversation. Here's a test you can apply: curiosity is equally open to what's true, false, or interesting about anything. If your position is that your side is right about everything while the opposing side is wrong about everything, you have left the spectrum of curiosity gratification and are functioning in the spectrum of political battle. Those do not overlap.
My ongoing issue, the "axe I grind", the "dead horse I beat" (refer to my history), is this very thing: the constant and obvious degradation of the quality of discourse on HN when it comes to Culture War topics. Most specifically: the homogeneous culture of refusal to even consider what is actually true. Not only is there little interest in what is true, but the very notion seems to be considered highly inappropriate for discussion, and anyone who dares mention it is considered an immoral heretic.
This trait has been sweeping through Western culture for years, if not decades - like a virus of the mind. HN was an outlier for quite some time, but as you know the infection has spread to here, and is flourishing.
From my perspective, there are at least two noteworthy issues in play:
1. The orderliness of HN forums.
2. The orderliness of the USA, and in turn the entire planet.
I imagine you may be less concerned about #2 than I am, but I happen to subscribe to the theory that "with great power, comes great responsibility". What if there was an approach that could plausibly "solve" (to a worthwhile degree) #1, and possibly also contribute to the solving of #2?
And if no one does anything different, where is the world going to be 5, 10, 20 years from now? Where would the world be today if it wasn't for the actions of a few key individuals at key points in history?
I don't see how it helps the orderliness of the planet to post in a disorderly way to HN. It's not so hard to stick to the site guidelines if you choose to.
I don't want to ban you but we really need you to post more thoughtfully (or put it this way: only post when you're able to post thoughtfully) and err on the side of respecting others.
> I don't see how it helps the orderliness of the planet to post in a disorderly way to HN.
I think it is plausible that if rational, computer programming types could regain the ability to discuss culture war topics at a level of discourse that has some regard for what is actually true (as opposed to mistaking one's ideological/heuristic opinion for fact, and losing one's temper when someone dares to ask "is that true?"), perhaps:
a) you wouldn't have to pass out so many warnings
b) we here at HN could perhaps bring some rationality to these issues, and perhaps come up with some solutions
c) if (b) succeeds, perhaps other communities could learn too
> It's not so hard to stick to the site guidelines if you choose to.
I assume it is this one that you believe I have violated: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
Am I "pushing an ideology" when I ask someone if their ideological and rarely factual (but stated factually) comment is actually true? To me, engaging in "political or ideological battle" is pushing(!) an opposing political/ideological idea. I may at times point out an opposing idea, but I do not do it on ideological grounds, I do it on epistemological grounds.
> I don't want to ban you but we really need you to post more thoughtfully (or put it this way: only post when you're able to post thoughtfully) and err on the side of respecting others.
Dang, have you read any of the conversations I have been involved in, have you read the comments of the people whom I have engaged in discussion with? I simply cannot wrap my head around how it is I who should be posting more "thoughtfully", or need to "respect others". Go read for yourself! Compare what I say to others, and compare what they say to me. Compare the quality of the content of other's posts to what I say in response. Peruse the historic voting on my comments (90%+ of my comments get precisely "-1" - isn't that a coincidence!), versus the thoughtfulness/respectfulness of the comments.
On culture war topics, this place has become not much better than what you'd find in /r/politics.
Where is the thoughtfulness? Where is the concern for, or curiosity about, what is true?
If you have actually perused my history, and this is your take on the relative behavior here, that I, the one who is exerting effort to discuss these topics in an evidence-based manner, am the one you shall pick out of the crowd to be given a warning, then I will be absolutely shocked.
The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice.