Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Agreed, I can barely stand those churlish wasteful Americans and their unwillingness to offer our environment it's well deserved 'amenities'.

Nevermind that the parent poster wasn't saying anything negative about this policy besides that it detracts interest/investment in rectifying issues that would have a far larger environmental impact for a lower price.

The relevant facts here: America is bad and Americans hate the environment. Let's invest in the basic environmental amenities guys!

25 years ago? Lets go even further into the past with our nationality shaming. Let's draw some other parallels from Germany's wonderful past actions.

Americans have a lot to learn.




We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11552124 and marked it off-topic.


Anyone care to substantiate these downvotes?

It's ok for the parent commenter to say all American's are anti-environmental and have 'issues defending the environment' but it's not ok for me to defend the original opine that this wasn't a 'pro-plastic-bag' argument but rather a 'pro-efficacious-solutions' argument?

Why. Please elucidate me.

This has nothing to do with America or Germany. This is about what is best for this planet and I strongly disagree with the parent posters anti-nationalism. This isn't an issue with 'America' alone.


You're getting downvoted because you're not contributing to the discussion and nobody is commenting because (I'm guessing here) everything thinks that this is a troll post. Just in case it isn't here is some stuff to keep in mind for the future:

> Agreed, I can barely stand those churlish wasteful Americans and their unwillingness to offer our environment it's well deserved 'amenities'. The relevant facts here: America is bad and Americans hate the environment. Let's invest in the basic environmental amenities guys!

Insulting 300+ million people without any substantiated data is not the way to influence others or to contribute. Insulting others simply makes people want to disengage in conversation with you.

This is especially true since this post and this side conversation are about how SF has adopted plastic-bag policies and solar panel policies. Insulting people for not caring about the environment in the same discussion where the topic is a discussion about how a major city trying to do something about the problem really has no benefit. Even in the face of conflicting definitive data you still choose to stereotype everyone. It's unclear how you are hoping to advance the conversation.

I'd recommend the following if you really do want people to listen to what you're trying to say (if that truly was your point):

1.) Never just attack a person/group/whatever you will never win people over by doing so. Attacking someone simply shows others that you are not interested in hearing what they have to say.

2.) If you're trying to make an argument then before you say anything you should figure out why people hold the beliefs they do. Until you can understand (however appropriate or misguided it may be) the other side, you should not say a thing.

3.) If you're trying to make an argument then provide compelling data to back up your claims. You must provide this data in a way that the other side can understand and how it relates to their own beliefs. You cannot successfully do this until you have accomplished 2.


Genuinely surprised anyone could read my original comment as anything other than sarcasm.

Who says churlish.

Meh. Maybe it was a troll. Well deserved downvotes.


I believe your content added nothing to the discussion except drive-by sarcasm, and thus met the HN quality guidelines for downvotes.

Your combative tone is what provided the impetus for people to downvote you.

Then aggressively challenging the downvoters earned you additional downvotes on this comment.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: