Remember the good ol' days when people just didn't discuss politics or religion out of decency? There was a reason for that, both bring out the worst in people.

It is an expression, you needn’t interpret it literally.

Oh, okay. I guess that's a convenient excuse to not have to back up your words.

This is hn not reddit, do you really expect a response to your whataboutism?

His reply was not whataboutism; it was a legitimate and direct retort to your post that exposes that what you asserted was false.

You can literally replace the first four words in their sentence with “What about when”.

That’s not what whataboutism is; it requires the “what about when” to be followed by a change of topic, to distract the other party from the original topic.

Like when I made a comment on general etiquette and someone else shifted the conversation to one of the worst moments of the civil rights movement?

Nope.

"Whataboutism" is just asking you to validate your claims, I guess.

You don’t need me to validate it for you, search “never discuss politics or religion in polite company” - it was a common maxim.

What, exactly, was the expression in your post that was not meant to be interpreted literally?

“Good ol’ days” is an idiom.

The problem is that living life is inherently political. Being able to ignore politics, not having to feel the need to discuss them, is a sign that you are inherently better off than a good chunk of this country.

A lot of people spend most of their waking hours having to deal with or at least keep in mind the fall out from regressive politics. Asking people to not discuss politics is like asking someone living in fear for their safety to not try and improve said safety. You're asking to not have to be bothered by something that annoys you to talk about in exchange for someone not being able to advocate for their life and livelihood.

I agree with the sentiment. My point was more people used to have a common understanding that there was a time and place for political (and religious) discussion - and that those beliefs were deeply personal, shaped largely by experience, and not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character.

Somewhere along the way we lost that idea, not all cultural changes are for the better.

I see, so from this reply I gather that your parent post was not “just an expression” as you claimed elsewhere, and you just got snippy when someone pushed back against your obviously out-of-touch assertion of fact.

As stated elsewhere, “good ol’ days” is an idiom. That was the expression. The point I was making was independent of the idiom/expression.

Goddamn, I wish I could block users on HN.

Just some intellectual sparring mate, no ill will intended.

Do you honestly think that falsely calling out an (informal) fallacy counts as “intellectual sparring,” whatever the fuck that is? What is wrong with you?

> What is wrong with you?

My mother denied me the teat.

> not meant to be held against one another in the broader judgement of their character

Really? When was that time? 1000 BC?

Was pretty common with my grandparents generation so… mid 20th century? I know it can be hard to believe post-internet.

Not sure why you're downvoted. The disagreement was not on tax policy or where to build what. I don't understand why both this and "some people shouldn't exist" are both labeled with the same word "political".

Thanks, but I’m used to being downvoted and flagged for speaking truthfully about fascism on this site.

What positive aspects are there for someone who supported racist birther conspiracy theories and supported Benjamin Netanyahu?

To Godwin a little, Hitler's veganism doesn't make him a "role model", even if you think veganism is a good thing.

Fortunately Godwin's law was only an observation of a tendency and, as Godwin himself clarified, not a proscription against an apt comparison.

Sorry you don’t get to say “Well this person doesn’t think I have the right to exist and be respected as a person. But I’m sure glad he saved a puppy once.”