That comment didn't add anything to the discussion. The comparison you made is not helpful to anyone's understanding of the situation. Please don't do that. Hold yourself to a higher standard in the future.
The comment is non-offensive and draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively. Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers is a legitimate comment on the possibility of editorial bias in the original article. I
It is useful because it places the article within a larger historical context. It extends the content, and on HN, that is appropriate.
I strongly disagree with your description of the objectionable comment:
* First, saying that it is "non-offensive" to compare someone to Stalin's regime (or more generally to the Soviet regimes) is so blatantly inaccurate that it's difficult to believe that you seriously advanced that claim. Let's set aside "offensive" and say merely that comparing someone to Stalin is in virtually all contexts likely to be inflammatory, perceived as aggressive and hostile, and very likely to derail the discussion. It is not innocuous. So the original claim, with its comparison to Stalin, is immediately suspect because the author has chosen a way to express their disagreement that leads the conversation away from substance.
* When you say it "draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively" you elide important points of information. For one, the nature of any comparison to Stalin. For another, the comment did not, I would say, "draw an analogy," it proposed one - and then took it for granted that the analogy was sound and useful. It presented no evidence for this point, it just stated its view as a _fait accompli._ That is not a good way to make an argument. When you advance a position, you're also obliged to advance evidence for it if you want it to be taken seriously. Humor is no defense here: the commenter was using sarcastic humor to advance an argument, and is not excused from the requirement of presenting evidence for the argument.
* On your own part, when you say "Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers..." you too are assuming facts not in evidence. Do you mean that Mr. Gruber is a Stalinist? Then please advance the evidence in favor of that, or abandon your argument. You are obliged to present your arguments and their evidence forthrightly, not to wink knowingly and wave in the general direction of something faintly evidence-like.
* That the comment "places the article within a larger historical context" is so low a standard as to be useless. Any comment here that referred to events outside of 2012 could be said to do as much. Even if the above critiques did not hold, saying that the comment added "historical context" would be too glib, would not be a substantial point in its favor. If the comment were presenting evidence for its views, that would be one thing, but to say that the comment as it stands adds "historical context" is to say nothing, because by that standard you could defend the legions of facile "Apple would never have done X while Steve Jobs was alive" comments.
* The comment advanced, more or less, the argument "Apple's press releases are a form of propaganda; their terseness requires us all to make inferences and guesses about goings-on inside the company that do not serve our understanding well." This is a mere argument - which is a good thing! It is something that we can have a discussion about, reason about, and it is capable of being falsified. For that matter, if the comment had had what I just said appended to its original content, then all would have been forgiven. But instead we got only the version of the comment that flatters the prejudices of people who are already convinced that Apple is a bunch of no-goodniks and which has nothing useful to say to people who are not already convinced of its argument.
In summary, I objected to the comment because it advanced its argument by a method that was obviously likely to drag the discussion in unproductive directions, because it advanced its argument without presenting any evidence, and because it was advancing by insult an argument that could have been advanced without the insult just as productively. I disagree with your defense of it because you are neither holding it to a high standard of argument nor addressing any of its flaws - flaws which are obvious enough that my listing them is barely necessary.
Now, since you spoke up to defend it, you have heard its measure. It didn't add anything to the discussion, and the comparison it made was not helpful to anyone's understanding of the situation. I'm willing to put effort into explaining exactly why I think that because I think that a high standard for discussions here is important and necessary, and that letting comments like the one I object to slide by without expressing that they do not meet those standards, is part of maintaining that standard of discussion. Silence on community standards serves no one well. When objectionable comments are met with vigorous resistance, it not only shows the people making them "no, that kind of comment is not welcome," it affirms the community standards by setting them out explicitly and bringing them to everyone's mind. This is why I'm willing to write this much telling you and the author of the objectionable comment why I object. It is not about my disagreeing. Disagreement is a normal part of discourse - but there is no productive disagreement to be had unless people make their arguments plainly, make them falsifiable, and make them by going from evidence to conclusion.
It was a joke, as commenters here observed. Generally if I see a comment I don't like the best signal/noise strategy is to just ignore it (unless its offensive. Didn't mean to offend).
Comparing two things is different from equating them. It's not offensive to compare Stalin to anything, including those things you hold sacred. It doesn't imply they are equal in all respects, and any inference to that effect on your part is in error.
> Comparing two things is different from equating them.
True, obviously.
> It's not offensive to compare Stalin to anything,
False.
> including those things you hold sacred. It doesn't
> imply they are equal in all respects, and any inference
> to that effect on your part is in error.
When you compare X to Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or the devil, you're necessarily invoking an element of offense to make your broader point. Rightly or wrongly, those figures are inexorably bound to offend. It's not possible to simply assert that away.
Giving nir the benefit of the doubt, I read his comment as a pretty clear reference:
> "Kremlinology is the study and analysis of Soviet (and today, Russian) politics and policies based on efforts to understand the inner workings of an opaque central government"
[...]
> "During the Cold War, lack of reliable information about the country forced Western analysts to "read between the lines" and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, the choice of capital or small initial letters in phrases such as "First Secretary", the arrangement of articles on the pages of the party newspaper "Pravda" and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics. In the German language, such attempts acquired the somewhat derisive name "Kreml-Astrologie" (Kremlin Astrology), hinting at the fact that its results were often vague and inconclusive, if not outright wrong."
If you read it this way too, and responded how you have making the same assumptions I did... then I suppose you are just a more civil-minded person than I am. I thought it was a worthwhile contribution, and as much as I love to keep HN's signal:noise high, I have a soft spot for this kind of sardonicism. And I think it was an important reminder amidst this highly speculative discussion, that I don't see any other comment making as tersely.
