
Two Koreas Discuss Official End to 68-Year War - edward
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/two-koreas-discuss-announcing-end-to-military-conflict-munhwa-jg35w9vf
======
atomical
Check out the Hoeryong concentration camp. That won't end with the war.

~~~
dang
At this point you're crossing into abuse. Would you please stop?

~~~
atomical
You have failed to prove I have violated HN guidelines. Would you please stop?

Thanks for the downvote. You're so petty.

~~~
dang
That was someone else. No one can downvote replies to them on HN, including
mods.

------
atomical
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeryong_concentration_camp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeryong_concentration_camp)

------
atomical
It is pointless. There are concentration camps in North Korea. What does peace
mean for those poor souls?

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments, especially on divisive topics.

~~~
dogma1138
What was exactly unsubstantiated in the GPs comment?

“Peace” just means an official end to hostilities instead of the current
armistice.

If the “Peace” does not entail a political restructuring of N. Korea it would
just empower the current regime which does operate concentration and forces
labor camps and even without those the population of N. Korea lives under some
of worse conditions imaginable.

~~~
dang
I said it was unsubstantive. The combination of tossing off a dismissal and
throwing in political flamebait guarantees lame arguments that are always the
same. That's what we don't want here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
atomical
It wasn't unsubstantive and generated quite a bit of discussion. Further, the
article was political in nature. Feel free to ban me from HN because I will be
posting such things again. Thanks.

~~~
dang
Yes, the article being political in nature means that HN commenters need to be
_more_ careful about not adding flamebait to the thread, because politicized
topics are much more vulnerable to flamewars. The guidelines make this point:
"Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets
more divisive."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
atomical
What was uncivil about my comment? How does one judge a comment as civil and
substantive? You've linked to something but haven't explained it.

~~~
dang
Not sure how helpful this is, but on the assumption that you're asking in good
faith: the problem with your comment upthread is that it was unsubstantive.

Peace talks between the Koreas may not be the best story for HN, but to
dismiss it shallowly with "It is pointless" and toss off one inflammatory
detail in a hand-wavey way, is unsubstantive when addressing a new development
in a major history. I'm not sure what's hard to see about that? it's a classic
example actually. That is why we have that guideline among others.

