zlacker

>>jseip+(OP)
The avoidance of controversial topics when talking together is one of those things we Europeans are typically not so good at. I know from many Europeans who like me lived in the US for a while that they had to learn the art of talking without touching controversial subjects. At first it seemed superficial but then I realised that it makes discussions that are not controversial but nevertheless important possible and I came to appreciate it every now and then.

Anyways, it would be nice if we in the settings could apply our own penalizing to subjects that we don't care about or that we find controversial instead of having others decide for us. But that would mean that submissions ranked differently for different users, of couse...

>>flexie+u4
Doesn't that sound like a very unhealthy national self censorship?

>>alan_c+T4
> Doesn't that sound like a very unhealthy national self censorship?

Fortunately, Hacker News is not a nation, and can censor all it likes to keep out all the crap.

>>davidw+h6
I remember when I first heard of the concept that you should not discuss sex, politics or religion in polite company. My thought then, which I still hold now, is that polite company sounds pretty damn boring.

>>moocow+kS
If you can't make interesting conversation without talking about sex, politics, or religion, that sounds like a problem with you.

>>ceol+nZ
It isn't a question of whether it is possible to have interesting conversations that do not involve those topics, I enjoy discussing a wide range of things. It is more that having forbidden topics as an indication of correct manners enforces a weird kind of false sterility on human affairs and I feel cheapens and narrows the culture that these manners claim to protect.