←back to thread

1009 points n1b0m | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.449s | source
Show context
JeremyNT ◴[] No.43411489[source]
Flagged, of course, to death.

This is an important story of US decline. This woman was here to do business. To work with Americans.

If you're flagging this because you're a part of the tech right, who thinks these policies are somehow good for you, maybe hold off on that flag button and let the discussion play out here. Think about what happens if people from the rest of the world are terrified of working within this country.

replies(3): >>43411517 #>>43411580 #>>43411761 #
Balgair ◴[] No.43411761[source]
I mean, at this point, do I just flag everything on the front page too? Is that the only recourse I have as a user in good faith? What other method do I have to show my displeasure with this subset of the community?
replies(1): >>43411815 #
1. diggan ◴[] No.43411815[source]
> do I just flag everything on the front page too?

Well, if it's all spam/off-topic, I guess flag it all. But unlikely it's all spam, this story certainly isn't, so not sure how it got flagged. Feels extremely relevant to various people who go to conferences, events and even just want to vacation.

> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

Edit: Since someone commented the "If they'd cover it on TV news it's offtopic" line from the rules but promptly deleted their comment, this is the section that might relevant too:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

I'd personally consider lawful residents getting sent to detention-centers for no good reasons being "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon", but we all think differently I suppose.

replies(1): >>43412012 #
2. ◴[] No.43412012[source]