The detox/immune-system metaphor seems really suspect in other words. You could just as easily argue that there is a "virus" (the changing political realities, new realities dawning on us), and that ignoring the "virus" or "symptoms" will make the adjustment that much more traumatic, the later we accept that it's happening. Or to switch the connotation, perhaps instead of a "virus", look at it as a "disruptive innovation" - where if we act as an entrenched incumbent, we will be disrupted as our competitors rewrite the rules, and we will be too far behind to pivot successfully.
Letting the community process the new inputs vigorously might seem more traumatic in the short term but it could also make us stronger overall.
This just seems counter to the principles that I appreciate at HN.
There are other sites to talk about politics on. Personally, I'm happy to come to HN to learn new things.
Letting the community process the new inputs vigorously might seem more traumatic in the short term but it could also make us stronger overall.
An extremely active 3000-day HN user with excellent technical contributions was recently banned due to the way they chose to express themselves regarding a political story. This made the community weaker, even if it was a necessary ban.
They were banned because of what they chose to write, it wasn't just because of a political discussion.
I don't agree. I think it's worth reading and trying to understand the perspectives of the participants. I wouldn't guess that any of them feel embarrassed by their comments. Instead, I get the feeling that everyone feels like they did what they must and the outcome matched their expectations based on the world they each perceive. I think it's instructive to review the episode and consider whether a different approach might have been able to reach a better result.