I think political discourse is important, and smart folks should engage in it.
HN I'd actually say has better discourse than just about anywhere else online, as hackers, more often than not, are open to revising their opinions and ideas based on objective fact. After all, you wouldn't get terribly far coding were you to doggedly retain irrational beliefs about the subject matter you're engaging in.
As to downvoting - not so much, I don't think. HN's moderation system is pretty effective in ensuring that poor voters and contributors don't get to continue doing so.
The SNR here is still much better than, say, reddit.
Finally, the argument of "we shouldn't talk about this, because it's polarising" is a dangerous one, as ultimately it serves only to stifle discourse.
From what I gather the main reason for keeping religion and politics off HN is to prevent people from losing respect for each other due to opposing views on either of these subjects.
I'm not sure if that's a net benefit or a net negative (it looks to be a benefit), one would hope adults can at least agree to disagree.
You know that's not what's happening on HN, Jacques. What's happening is that the majority of HN politics commenters support a single analysis of what's actually happening in the world, and go out of their way to demonize and insult anyone who questions that's analysis, even when it's evident that the people they're insulting roughly agree with them. On HN in 2013 we can't even agree to mostly agree.
The worst bit about this is attempting to sensibly devil's advocate another viewpoint, then find out you're pitted 10 to one and have completely unrelated comments downvoted to oblivion just so they can prove a point. That, or all-caps comments responding to one single sentence, or people making false rebuttals that seem as though they didn't read your comment...the list goes on and on...
I disagree. From my experience trying to argue logically against the impassioned HN mob, the real reason to take politics off of HN is because of the sheer volume. There's too many people who haven't done any research, who just see headlines with buzzwords and believe them, then regurgitate their contents in arguments. Then they fallaciously argue those points and get increasingly bitter until it's pointless to continue.
No you don't. You participate almost exclusively in political discussions on HN, and when you do, you routinely attack the people you're talking to, for instance when you told this commenter to "use their brain instead of their TV for once":
In ~75 days of comments I didn't see you once acknowledge a point anyone else here made, even one that agreed with you. It appears that in the past ~quarter or so, you haven't observed a single argument that you managed to simultaneously disagree with and "respect".
We should be able to presume that you know your own comments better than I could know them in 5 minutes of skimming, so I invite you to prove me wrong and show me the place in the last 2 months where you demonstrated this appreciation of well-formed comments you disagree with.
OK - I respect you. I find myself not infrequently disagreeing with your positions, but you more often than not argue them cogently and with objective evidence - as above.
Actually, I take your point, in its entirety. I can be quite the little shrike when it comes to political discussions, and I often manage to undermine my own point with my approach - although I think you have just managed a pretty great "the worst of" collection!
That said, just to provide you one recent little counterexample -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6180222 - looks, there's me responding to your actually also reductio ad absurdum comment (it's an acronym so he's scared of it), in a balanced fashion!
But more often than not I don't feel the need to go "let's agree to disagree", in part because I loathe the phrase, and in part because even if I get and appreciate someone's counterargument, if I don't agree with them I'm unlikely to laud it.
But... I think you're right about the last few months. The Snowden affair has bought out the raving pareidoliac in me, and I've slewed from largely discussing engineering and science to, as you say, almost purely politics.
I didn't say you were scared of the acronym. I said people were scared of the acronym. That should be a non-controversial observation.
In fact, the attempt to distill a simple observation into a pointed personal attack is a good illustration of the kinds of bullshit arguments that happen on political threads here.
I don't feel good about singling you out and do appreciate the calm response to what was certainly an aggressive comment upthread. Please understand, I don't know you or really anything about you; it's not personal. My problem is with politics on HN.
No, I know you didn't - but it could have been taken that way, just chose not too. "People" falls under "weasel words" and is a handy debate tactic for framing your opponent's argument without overtly doing so.
Anyway - I see your point. I too worry that we're a) septembering and b) potentially balkanising on lines that this community shouldn't be balkanised upon.
I just try to take the optimistic view that HN'ers are collectively wise and mature enough to not get put out by internet bar fights, and to see them for what they are, without losing the signal.
> the argument of "we shouldn't talk about this, because it's polarising" is a dangerous one
You're right, as moderation systems and communities go, this is one of the better ones.
Please note, though, I wasn't saying we shouldn't talk about this, we should. I was saying we shouldn't talk about this with a voting system attached, because that structurally predisposes a forum towards a one-sided discussion.
In hindsight, I probably should have just solicited an "Ask HN: What's the best forum moderation system for political discussions?" instead of hijacking this thread.
HN I'd actually say has better discourse than just about anywhere else online, as hackers, more often than not, are open to revising their opinions and ideas based on objective fact. After all, you wouldn't get terribly far coding were you to doggedly retain irrational beliefs about the subject matter you're engaging in.
As to downvoting - not so much, I don't think. HN's moderation system is pretty effective in ensuring that poor voters and contributors don't get to continue doing so.
The SNR here is still much better than, say, reddit.
Finally, the argument of "we shouldn't talk about this, because it's polarising" is a dangerous one, as ultimately it serves only to stifle discourse.