7 ms·

It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsid

It seems most posters didn't really read the article as the tariffs appear to be in compliance with a WTO ruling on something illegal the EU is doing wrt subsidies to Airbus. Unsurprising that the NYT and HN goes with the lead that Trump is unilaterally fucking up world order yet again but in this case it doesn't seem so deserved. I really wish both groups (the NYT and HN) would be more nuanced when it comes to Trump. Otherwise, we all end up justifying Trump's and other Alt-Righties' claims of bias.

matt4077 7y ago
Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story. The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph. If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head. It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.
- h3throw 7y ago
  It's all in my head? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete. When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    The article goes on to point out that the WTO has ruled vast quantities of tax breaks to Boeing by Washington State and South Carolina also amount to illegal subsidies, the magnitude of which the EU is patiently waiting to obtain from the WTO before acting on. It’s a little rich to see Boeing, the recipient of tons of illegal subsidies, pointing the finger at Airbus, in a pot-meet-kettle kind of way. Then calling in goons in the form of a uniquely sympathetic administration. FWIW this absolutely backfired last time, when they tried to squash the Bombardier C-series. They were afraid of a strengthening Bombardier but forced their hand and they gifted the program to Airbus — a much bigger threat. The fact is the Trump administration is a fly-by-night operation of largely corrupt, authoritarian-leaning, nepotist, criminal actors (just by number of indictments). They literally tried to appoint a failed presidential candidate slash restaurant magnate with 30ish claims of sexual harassment against him who wants to return to the gold standard and is proud of his lack of knowledge of world leaders to man the Federal Reserve. This Week. That doesn't mean they're always wrong. It just means they've conditioned us to assume they are. Not really our fault, though, you know?
  - Thorncorona 7y ago
    I think you're contriving viewpoints that simply aren't there. Nobody is talking about Trump, rather people are enjoying the irony of the US being one of the countries that subsidizes the most yet complaining about other countries. On another note, I think your headline is fine. After all, surely the secret service is capable of non-lethally incapacitating a man with a machete. But even if not, it's false equivocation.

matt4077 7y ago

Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story. The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph. If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head. It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.

h3throw 7y ago
It's all in my head? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995 I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete. When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  The article goes on to point out that the WTO has ruled vast quantities of tax breaks to Boeing by Washington State and South Carolina also amount to illegal subsidies, the magnitude of which the EU is patiently waiting to obtain from the WTO before acting on. It’s a little rich to see Boeing, the recipient of tons of illegal subsidies, pointing the finger at Airbus, in a pot-meet-kettle kind of way. Then calling in goons in the form of a uniquely sympathetic administration. FWIW this absolutely backfired last time, when they tried to squash the Bombardier C-series. They were afraid of a strengthening Bombardier but forced their hand and they gifted the program to Airbus — a much bigger threat. The fact is the Trump administration is a fly-by-night operation of largely corrupt, authoritarian-leaning, nepotist, criminal actors (just by number of indictments). They literally tried to appoint a failed presidential candidate slash restaurant magnate with 30ish claims of sexual harassment against him who wants to return to the gold standard and is proud of his lack of knowledge of world leaders to man the Federal Reserve. This Week. That doesn't mean they're always wrong. It just means they've conditioned us to assume they are. Not really our fault, though, you know?
- Thorncorona 7y ago
  I think you're contriving viewpoints that simply aren't there. Nobody is talking about Trump, rather people are enjoying the irony of the US being one of the countries that subsidizes the most yet complaining about other countries. On another note, I think your headline is fine. After all, surely the secret service is capable of non-lethally incapacitating a man with a machete. But even if not, it's false equivocation.