It’s being flagged right now because frankly it is deeply popular to hate rich people, especially in this political climate. Since this article raises an unpopular, opposite point of view, it has been flagged.
The article didn't even go very far to defend rich people or their wealth, merely arguing that it's not bad for people to obey existing laws that permit them to defer paying taxes on unrealized capital gains, and possibly also not bad for them to obey existing laws that permit them to give unrealized capital gains to charity instead of being taxed on them.
I wholeheartedly agree. But the reddit hypersensitive and hyperbolic mentality is seeping out of reddit - any mention that even suggests that contrary belief is wrong or misguided is met with a strong response that discourages further discussion on the matter. Cancel culture, in short. I’ve been seeing it creep into HN for quite some time, although it’s more civil here.
I stopped short of flagging it myself, but I disagree that it "raises many valid points". At best it seems to miss the forest for the trees, and at worst reads far worse intentions into the Propublica article than I can see. However, it does so in a way that takes a disproportionate amount of effort to refute, where it's not just a subjective judgment call. This is a pretty decent definition of toxicity. Silencing it is really the only effective way to deal with it.
It's frankly scary that this line of thinking has become so in vogue. Let's exacerbate the definition of something to the point that it must be censored.
Example:
"takes a disproportionate amount of effort to refute"
-> This is a pretty decent definition of toxicity
-> Silencing it is really the only effective way to deal with it.
Once you've admitted it's toxic, and not just a dissenting opinion, the alternative is to allow the quality of discussion to fall until it arrives at the unmoderated mean, where no intellectual or valuable conversation occurs. There are infinite places online to engage at that level.
Edit: I'm not asserting that this particular case is in fact toxic. Anyway, it's subjective.
I'm understand. I'm generally in favor of people being able to express controversial opinions held in good faith. But I've been forced to accept that some people just need to be shut up however possible. In this case I'm not saying he should have his blog taken away, but I am saying no one should amplify content like this.
In the abstract, something is toxic if it disrupts or makes impossible desired processes even in very small amounts. Trolling is obvious, conspiracy theories are closer. Some things inherently generate more heat than light, suck oxygen out of productive conversation. You don't have to be a radical leftist (I'm really not at all), you can just watch it happen here or any other forum.
> and at worst reads far worse intentions into the Propublica article than I can see.
The ProPublica article calls out Warren Buffett for tax avoidance, even though he simply had less income. I question the integrity of the writers who want to slander Buffett, who has been extremely outspoken about increasing the taxes rich people pay. There exists no tax on unrealized gains, and Buffett did not realize gains, so why would they try to make an example out of him by falsely accusing him of hypocrisy?
How do you claim someone is avoiding a tax that does not even exist?
While they might have a point about needing to tax unrealized gains, they certainly went about it in an inappropriate manner, more suited for a tabloid rather than a respectable outlet for journalism.
