[jackyinger]

I guess I’m making the mistake of assuming others have taken a similar intellectual path as I have.

I’m an Elecrical and Computer Engineer (ECE) by schooling. But I did pay attention in my mandatory liberal arts class. I took a Political Philosophy course, and a 400 level History of US Foreign Policy, where I was the only non-history major.

People inevitably opine on government/politics. And because of that I think they should delve deeper. I think that delving deeper and having civil conversation are how we escape the toxic mess media currently dishes out.

[AlexandrB]

I think the danger with political discussion is that the expression of an idea is as important as the idea itself. This means that to have a productive political discussion you either need:

1. Very very high verbal skills so that each person can communicate their idea in a way that doesn't leave (much) room for interpretation or a bad-faith reading.

2. A community that "steelmans" each-other's ideas and consistently chooses the best-faith interpretation of what the other person is saying.

(1) is impossible in a forum that accepts folks from a range of backgrounds and abilities. (2) is generally impossible in a public forum on the internet. Even if everyone on Hacker News stuck to this principle, outsiders would not. You'd get posts on reddit about how "Hacker News is a haven for Nazis". Or posts on X about how "Communists are invading the tech community" and ultimately a lot of bad press for Y Combinator that I'm sure they'd rather not have.

[jackyinger]

Great points, I absolutely agree.

[sillyfluke]

Failure of 1&2 is why there are flame wars yes, but I thought the motto on here is often "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

> (1) is impossible in a forum that accepts folks from a range of backgrounds and abilities.

This by itself doesn't account for why there is significantly less low-value political comments on here than reddit, to which (1) also technically applies. For (2), taking the best-faith interpretation is already in the HN guidelines. I'm also guessing that the mods let many flagged politically posts by users stay flagged because from experience they "know" which posts will trigger flame wars or low-value comments from the community because of the "past performance predicts future performance" thing. (ie, the unsaid thing is they don't trust the community to obey 1&2 on those posts due to past track record).

I for one would love to read past discussions of historic political events as they happen live from a community that includes industrialists of the past and their well-paid or high-skilled employees as well as people from academia in related fields. So why limit posterity's ability to do the same?

[nospice]

> I guess I’m making the mistake of assuming others have taken a similar intellectual path as I have.

Oh, come on. I know a lot of people who are highly educated and intelligent but fall for the same outrage bait as everyone else... we're bombarded with so much political talking points that we don't carefully consider every headline, verify every source, and then publish nuanced takes on social media where the stories change every hour.

The bottom line is that, with all respect, I absolutely don't care about the political hot takes of people on HN. And I'm sure they don't care about mine. I know where to go when I want to talk politics. If I want measured takes from scholars, I can read their columns or blogs. If I want to argue, I'll do it with family and real-world friends.