| |
| ▲ | xupybd 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | My friends baby tested positive for down syndrome in one of the early screenings. They suggested termination. When my friend asked what the chances were they said on that test they had a 1 in 100 chance of down syndrome. That baby did not have down syndrome and is now a happy seven year old. | | |
| ▲ | walthamstow 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We were given 1 in 21 from the nuchal transparency on the 12 week scan, then we did CVS testing to find out for sure. Terminating on 1/100 without any further testing seems crazy to me. Of course, our scans and screening were all 'free' on the NHS, so there was no cost to getting extra data. | |
| ▲ | munksbeer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How early was this screening? I've not heard of a 1 in 100 chance, and I really struggle to believe medical practitioners would be suggesting termination. I suspect something was lost in translation when you were told the story. | |
| ▲ | namenotrequired 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wait, am I reading this wrong or did they suggest abortion to avoid a mere 1% risk of Down syndrome? | | |
| ▲ | mrheosuper 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 1% of completely ruining your life and your baby life ?. Not a chance i would take personally. | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | SecondHandTofu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is your point, that variance exists? I'm not sure I'd play Russian roulette even with a 100 chamber cylinder. 99 people might come away with an anecdote though. |
| |
| ▲ | tmsh 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree on the surface. But where do we draw the line of choosing what we think (in our very limited human understanding of future events) is better for a child? Soon it’s GATTACA. As an extreme counter example consider if you could choose the race of a child. Or their melatonin levels. You might think one is “easier” for the child or even “better” for a happy life or something, but then at what point do you have that “right”? I’m very pro-science but I also feel for the people with downs who are like - what? They’re going to end everyone like me in the future? | |
| ▲ | afavour 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly it’s confounding to even think about it. Aborting a fetus with Down’s syndrome? Feels cruel to deprive someone of life for that. But if it meant you went on to have another child you otherwise wouldn’t have then you’re giving life. I think at a certain point you can’t consider this stuff rationally. | | |
| ▲ | devonbleak 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I have a cousin with DS. You have to be committed and have the means to raise a child with extreme needs. Many of them will live with their parents their entire lives and will not develop cognitively beyond their tweens (hence the Britney Spears anecdote above). The ones that do move out tend to have to go to a place that specializes in assisting them. They can also have pretty extreme health issues. Yes, they can be beautiful people that bring light to others around them, but those others also don't typically get exposed to the behind the scenes struggles of the entire family to cope with this. Some people are prepared to do this; I don't judge the ones that decide they're not. I would hate for someone to go into it not understanding what they're signing up for. | | |
| ▲ | Loudergood 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The true challenge is what happens after those caregivers pass on. | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this point would be better made without using the word “extreme” so much. All children bring new challenges; kids with DS often bring more; my child with DS has never, ever been an “extreme” challenge (just like most of the other families with kids with DS we know). There are definitely outliers where the “extreme” applies, but it’s not a helpful way of thinking about DS in general. | | |
| ▲ | magicalhippo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | From this[1] list of associated complications one can read: People with Down syndrome are much more likely to die from untreated and unmonitored infections than other people. Children with Down syndrome are much more likely than other children to develop leukemia Children with Down syndrome are more likely to have epilepsy [...] Almost half of people with Down syndrome who are older than age 50 have epilepsy. And from this paper[2]: Clinical research and longitudinal studies consistently estimate the lifetime risk of dementia in people with Down syndrome to be over 90%. Dementia is rare before the age of 40 years, but its incidence and prevalence exponentially increase thereafter, reaching 88–100% in persons with Down syndrome older than 65 years. [...] In a longitudinal study of adults with Down syndrome, dementia was the proximate cause of death in 70% of cases. Saying they can have extreme health issues does not seem excessive given the above IMHO. [1]: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/down/conditioninfo/a... [2]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9387748/ | | |
| ▲ | frumper a day ago | parent [-] | | It's interesting about the leukemia one. They're also more likely to survive it than children without Down Syndrome and less likely to get a second cancer. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/11/408906/survivors-childhood... Aside from that, it is actually hard to paint an accurate picture of today with historical data for people with Down Syndrome as the childhood Trisomy 21 strategies have improved and been implemented in the past 20-30 years. 60 years ago kids with Trisomy 21 were moved into institutions. Kids 30 years ago got some basic treatments to keep them alive. Now kids get all kinds of screenings for hearing, vision, thyroid, heart conditions before problems develop. Turns out it's very difficult to grow, learn and thrive when your thyroid doesn't work, or your cardiovascular system wasn't circulating enough oxygen. There are more struggles for sure, including intellectual disabilities, but many more kids are doing significantly better than their past generations. It costs more, is more work, but like the parent poster said, my experience certainly isn't extreme. We go to more doctor's appointments, have IEP meetings, and she's in speech therapy. She's generally been pretty healthy, happy and very active. It was scary when she was born. We were given a pamphlet with a list of things similar to your first link. The reality though is she's more likely to have those than the general population, but some of those things are very rare. 100x very rare is still rare. Having all of those issues would be even more rare. The greater point though is that any kid can have those issues too. The epilepsy link seems to conflict with what I've seen.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31391451/
https://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/about-downs-syndrome/healt... Both of those put it closer to 10% sometime in their life, with about half of those at birth. |
| |
| ▲ | 542354234235 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | To add to what magicalhippo said about the extremes of medical issues, the extremes of parenting seem appropriate. "Average" parenting follows a trajectory of intense parenting of a newborn, and end at light/no parenting of an adult. For an overwhelming majority of families with kids with DS, the intense parenting requirement last long and more progresses slowly and the trajectory plateaus at around the tween stage, where a significant portion of your day, every day, is dedicated to managing and caring for your child. I would say that spending tens of thousands of additional hours, likely up until your own death, caring for an adult child would count as extreme needs. |
| |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As the percentage of adults of ordinary abilities who fail to launch continues to rise, I wonder if we'll stop seeing this as a deficit specific to DS and other intellectual disabilities. |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At 2 months, there's still no "someone" to speak of. It's an inch long, with some foundational structures of the nervous system beginning to form. | |
| ▲ | move-on-by 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My partner and I tested for it. We had a discussion and agreed a positive down’s result would not affect our decision to have the baby, but we were testing for other things anyway and it seemed like having the information earlier rather then later would help up prepare. | |
| ▲ | nkrisc 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At some point you have to choose an arbitrary line in the sand, or otherwise the universe is a single being. All lines are arbitrary. | | |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The line between "haploid gametes" and "diploid organism" doesn't seem arbitrary. There's a clear and meaningful difference between a gamete and an organism from a biological perspective. | | |
| ▲ | colordrops 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You are not talking about the same thing as the person you are replying to. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mixdup 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How does the reasoning behind the choice to end a pregnancy matter? If abortion is acceptable at a given point in pregnancy, the reason behind making the choice shouldn't be "cruel". How would it be any less cruel if it was a healthy pregnancy but the woman was not ready to raise a child? For the record, I'm pro-choice. It's just kind of weird that people are OK with abortion but only in weird certain circumstances. I get timing--if a fetus is viable, why someone would think that's too late to make that choice. But not the motivation behind it |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | RajT88 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am not advocating any course in particular. But I will observe that when such treatments become available, such conditions become a marker of lower socioeconomic class and the people with the conditions get treated less well by society. This is why we need a better healthcare system. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's hard to imagine a treatment cost so high that it wouldn't be worth the USG paying for it. Down syndrome kids and adults have some quantifiable economic cost; normal adults are worth some other quantifiable economic benefit; the difference is going to be significantly more than the cost of treatment. | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The US government is not one person or a small set of people with a coherent strategy making decisions based on cost-benefit analysis. It’s an extremely complex emergent system whose properties can only be understood by studying them empirically, not by appealing to arguments about what a human would think is worth it or would make sense. | | |
| ▲ | labster 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Another statement that I would have simply accepted as fact a year ago, but now I believe is false. The US government is now primarily one person, and occasionally a small set of people, making cost-benefit decisions on what will benefit themselves more. The complex system is mostly gone, soon to be washed away, in favor of layers of patronage and favoritism. Much simpler. | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That is not true. Lots of things Trump wants the government to do have not happened (random example: stopping the grant of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and other non-permanent residents), precisely because he does not fully control it. Maybe he will someday, but he doesn’t yet. |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This isn't responsive to my comment. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I believed they interpreted your post as pointing out the straightforward cost-benefit analysis (with an implication that it seems likely that we’d end up behaving according to that analysis). And they are pointing out that our government often doesn’t behave in a way that is compliant with a straightforward analysis. It doesn’t seem like a very out-there interpretation of your post, maybe it is wrong, though. In particular the implication that I’ve got in parenthesis is, for sure, reading between the lines and maybe wrong. But I don’t really get the response of “This isn’t responsive to my comment.” It doesn’t seem to move the conversation forward or clarify anything. Seems like a dead-end. What’s the point? |
|
| |
| ▲ | macintux 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's hard to imagine a treatment cost so low that the USG would pay for it. | | | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t think I entirely disagree with your position. However, positioning my kid (and others with DS) in opposition to “normal” makes it hard to engage respectfully. As a parent of one typically-developing child and one with Down syndrome, I feel qualified to say they both come with quantifiable economic costs. Quantifiable economic benefits are pretty far in the future for both of them (they’re 11 and 8, if it helps ground my points). | |
| ▲ | zem 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | the us government is often driven not by cost/benefit analysis, but by the horror of someone poor getting something without "deserving" it | | |
| ▲ | leptons 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Republicans are often driven not by cost/benefit analysis, but by the horror of someone poor getting something without "deserving" it FTFY |
| |
| ▲ | jedimastert 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's hard to imagine a treatment cost so high that it wouldn't be worth the USG paying for it. Given that this is also true of universal health insurance and the US government also doesn't pay for that... | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They (we) do, just for groups that incur the highest medical expenses on average. Why we can't just open up Medicare to all is beyond me, adding on the portions of the population who are on average the healthiest (and who are already paying for the people on it) would not push up the cost significantly. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | barbazoo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What is “normal development”? And doesn’t that describe the process, not the outcome? If the outcome is happiness, who knows who has it better?! | | |
| ▲ | mathgeek 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | While "what is normal" is a reasonable question, a normal development is certainly closer to something that allows folks to achieve most things in any career/hobby/pursuit they choose. | | |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you really see that as a "norm" being met by a majority of the population today? I don't think most people's lived experience is anything like that. | | |
| ▲ | mathgeek a day ago | parent [-] | | Normal being closer to what I said than what is usually achievable for folks with extra chromosomes? Yes, I do. I didn’t say it _was_ that anyone can achieve anything. |
|
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Normal development starts with having the normal number of chromosomes. I would think this is elementary biology. | | |
| ▲ | barbazoo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think of it as more of a probability question. There is a much greater chance of a person having two copies of chromosome 21 instead of three. "Normal" often carries some form of judgement but I guess technically you are correct to use the word. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | No. Having two copies of each chromosome is NORMAL. Having 3 is NOT normal. Being completely unwilling to make normative statements seems rather cowardly. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jojobas 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Such that doesn't see you infertile and dead by 30. | | |
| |
| ▲ | wyldfire 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't know if it's the case for folks with Down Syndrome (I suppose it's likely not), but hearing-impaired folks have their own culture to the point that in the past it was seen as some as a betrayal to the community to seek out cochlear implants. I think having their own language does a lot to create unity among them. All that above is to say that I wonder if some folks in Down Syndrome might actually prefer their status quo abnormal development? | | |
| ▲ | scheeseman486 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Down syndrome has significant developmental effects beyond mental impairment, lifespans are considerably shorter and while that's improving that doesn't take into account quality of life, medical complications are almost inevitable. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The mental impairment shouldn't be understated. We are talking about people that will perpetually need care and supervision. Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be great if society could give these people more than poverty after their parents die, but as it stands, unless that person was born into wealth they are looking at misery when the state becomes their caretakers. I have a child with a server mental disability, I love them pieces, but frankly what happens to them after I'm gone is one of my biggest concerns. That's the hard reality I wish people hand wringing about the ethics of avoiding down syndrome would confront. It's one thing to call them a blessing, but are you going to push and advocate for government spending so these blessings don't end up in a hellhole when they are no longer cute children? | | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This starts from an incorrect premise — that everyone with Down syndrome “will perpetually need care and supervision” — and then heads downhill. “Misery” and “ends up in a hellhole” are choices society has often made in the past for people with intellectual disabilities, but they aren’t a law of physics or fundamental moral law. What are the ethics (and societal obligation) of supporting someone who’s had a severe stroke? Or how about a traumatic brain injury from a car accident? Oxygen deprivation from near drowning? If these are different from a congenital condition like DS, why? | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The same, which is why I support universal healthcare and expanding healthcare to include nursing support/housing for the disabled. If someone gets cancer, then yeah they should be covered such that they aren't made homeless because of their disease. If someone has a stroke that leaves them unable to work, again a social safety net that keeps them from being homeless should be in place. The ethics are pretty simple. It's reasonable for a good society to support those in need through force of taxation. Just like it's good for a society to keep the water clean through force of taxation and regulation. Everyone benefits or has the potential to benefit from such a universal system that protects them from circumstances outside their control. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | loeg 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People are giving you shit because Down Syndrome sucks, but being deaf sucks too, and withholding hearing from kids of deaf adults is and was child abuse. | | |
| ▲ | ksenzee 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Cochlear implants aren't magical hearing restorers. If they were, you'd be right. But they aren't. There are limitations. Music is especially difficult to perceive properly. | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, that's not why ... it's because the comparison is bogus. |
| |
| ▲ | wonderwonder 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I used to live near a down syndrome living facility. Essentially a house converted into a care facility in a neighborhood. ~8 - 10 people with downs lived there. Very few visitors (parents), almost all the cars belonged to the nurses. Isolated from everyone they lived around and kept away from the neighbors (I'm sure to the neighbors relief). required constant care. I don't think its a life most would choose. | | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you never interacted with the residents there, how are you so sure it was so bad? Nevermind the people in the group home — on what basis did you acquire the belief that the neighbors were “relieved” not to interact with them? Maybe you’re right and this situation was terrible for everyone. Is this arrangement required? Is it the best we can do? I don’t think most people would choose to live a life with many common afflictions. I certainly wish my lower back didn’t hurt all the time. That doesn’t invalidate my existence, and neither does my son’s Down syndrome invalidate his. | | |
| ▲ | wonderwonder 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I was a neighbor...
I was friends with the neighbors.
I literally lived across the street from the home.
I'm sure the nursing staff was nice and they got as great a life as one could have in a group home.
I never claimed having downs invalidated anyone's existence, I simply stated that I don't think its a condition anyone would willingly desire if given an alternative. Also they had an ambulance or fire truck there at least once every couple months. |
| |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How long ago was this? I ask because segregation like that was considered standard of care decades ago, but has not been in decades now too, so if it was recent, it's not following current best practices, and if it was long ago, it's worth noting that this is no longer the standard of care, indeed because it wasn't helpful and people would not choose it. | | |
| ▲ | wonderwonder 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Last year?
Its just a house in a residential neighborhood. Neighbors obviously did not want to interact with them very often, limited to a wave if one of them was taking out the trash. The segregation is pretty much desired by the neighbors and understood by the nurses. No one raising a family really wants to have to interact with mentally challenged non family people every day of their lives. Keeping the interaction limited means complaints don't happen. | | |
| ▲ | danw1979 2 days ago | parent [-] | | My experience of interacting with people who have Down’s syndrome is that they are especially outgoing, preternaturally friendly and just generally lovely to be around. I’m not arguing for either side of the treatment/screening debate here, but vehemently against an apartheid-like view on how people with disabilities should be treated, i.e. not as outcasts but as fellow humans. | | |
| ▲ | wonderwonder a day ago | parent [-] | | I agree, reality is though that they have special needs and for the most part are unable to care for themselves. The people in the home were there because their families were either unable or unwilling to do it. Reality is that the vast majority of families don’t want a facility in their neighborhood. If downs could be prevented its an overall positive outcome. I wish nothing but happiness for those already affected |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is absolutely no benefit to Down Syndrome. | | |
| ▲ | ImJamal 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I know a guy who has down syndrome and he is the happiest guy I've ever met. Any time I see him, even if he doesn't see me, he is smiling and just looks like he loves life. When he sees me, or anybody else he knows, he gets the biggest grin on his face. When you talk to him, you can tell he is such a happy guy with no stress. If that is not a benefit then I'm not sure what is. | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is absolutely no benefit to being many things that some humans are. | |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Surveys consistently indicate that people with DS, their family members, and people who know them consider their lives better because of it. That's a benefit. | | |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > cochlear implants Cochlear implants are reversible. A genetic disease is not. | | |
| ▲ | KingMob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Cochlear implants are not technically reversible, iirc. They permanently destroy hair cells of the inner ear during surgery to make direct electrical contact, so removing them won't restore your pre-implant level of hearing. It's usually a moot point if your hearing's bad enough to be a candidate for implants, tho. |
| |
| ▲ | hankman86 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most do not have the cognitive abilities for these kinds of philosophical debates. |
| |
| ▲ | gerdesj 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As soon as someone starts ascribing towards a "normal" and using the pronoun "them", warning bells should go berserk. | | |
| ▲ | hankman86 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No. Down Syndrome leads to an objectively worse outcome for the affected individuals. And their parents, I might add. We should not let compassion for these people obstruct some basic facts. My only consideration would be the potential risks and side effects that are to be expected for any medical intervention. But if we were expecting a child that was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, I would not hesitate for a second to give this child the chance for a normal life. And us parents the chance for normal parenthood. | | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Down Syndrome leads to an objectively worse outcome for the affected individuals. And their parents, I might add. Please cite your sources and show your work. My child with Down syndrome is a giant pain in my ass, I worry about him constantly, and there are days where I wonder “why me?” The same is 100% true about my typically-developing daughter. | | | |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What is the objective standard? Subjectively, surveys consistently report that those who have DS and their families consider it a better outcome, so I'd like to know more about the details of an objective standard that ignores or overrides the reporting of those closest to the experience. | |
| ▲ | jedimastert 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And their parents, I might add. Down syndrome has nothing to do with parent outcomes. Society refusing to actually provide support is the issue here. |
| |
| ▲ | tumnus 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The word "them" has been used for centuries in cases where the writer may want to refer to a subject, or subjects, of no specific gender. I wonder why it's suddenly bothering you. | | |
| ▲ | jader201 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think the parent’s point was that “them” is referring to a group that is “other than normal”, and that that should raise caution.
(Not agreeing or disagreeing, simply trying to infer the meaning.) | | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | “other than normal” Misquote. The statement was "What's better for them should be the overriding concern and that's to have a normal development". |
|
| |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | genetics doesn’t care about your feelings. If a human has the genetic issue (issue with cell division on a specific chromosome…i forget which one), they’ll typically have severe developmental challenges in childhood. And if unlucky, end up nonverbal. I’m pretty sure most scientists would consider being able to communicate effectively with your own species, “normal”. Regardless of what animal you are. Just like it’s normal to have 5 fingers as a human. But some humans have more or less. That’s just…life. No need to be unnecessarily sensationalist. I do agree that using the term “normal” should give someone pause. But warning bells? Depends on context…like everything in life. :) | |
| ▲ | balamatom 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Any time someone uses the word "normal", I reach for my wallet, to check if it's still there | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 123yawaworht456 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The heresy of heresies was common sense. | | |
| ▲ | dang 2 days ago | parent [-] | | We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Regardless of ideology, that's not allowed here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html p.s. This isn't a response to this particular comment, but to the account's overall pattern of behavior, which is way over the line. | | |
| ▲ | 123yawaworht456 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'll make another ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ yes, naturally, almost every post I make on my throwaways is something political, in response to existing political comments or submissions, which are evidently allowed. using throwaways to protect oneself from the terminally online crowd is pretty much a necessity in the current year, unless your values and opinions are firmly in the middle of the Overton window. and even then, there are many opinions that were universally okay 15 years ago can be used against you now. I've seen it happen time and time again. | | |
| ▲ | dang a day ago | parent [-] | | > in response to existing political comments or submissions, which are evidently allowed This makes me think that you might not have taken in the essential bit, which is the pattern of an account's behavior. Was that not clear from the above? In case it helps, the issue is that we don't want accounts to use HN primarily for arguing about politics or ideology. That's an important test and has proven to be one of the more reliable ones, in terms of whether an account is using HN as intended or not (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...) Separately from that, looking at https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=123yawaworht456, I see other reasons to ban such an account—you've routinely been breaking HN's rules in plenty of ways which have nothing to do with your specific opinions. If your motivation is simply to protect yourself, as you say here, then I wonder why that would be. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | TechDebtDevin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
