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
I don't think it's an American phenomenon. Every culture has their taboo and sacrosanct subjects - you're just used to the European ones.

From an American perspective, you could argue that it's tough to have a candid conversation about the monarchy in England, World War II in Germany, abortion in Ireland, or entrepreneurship and wealth creation in France.

>>wikibu+wt
As a British Republican, that one stings. Very true.

>>tehwal+8B
Snap, I often have to put up with responses like; "So you want us to be like France then, you traitor? The queen makes us British. You are just jealous of her money. Etc, etc, etc."

Unfortunately many British people have the idea of royalty tied up very tightly with their national identity, so any suggestion of getting rid of the monarchy is seen as being treasonous.

>>moocow+pL
Honest question here from an American who heard about monarchy from the other side:

Isn't a British subject suggesting getting rid of the British monarchy basically treasonous by definition?

>>marshr+FE1
Umm, no? It might have been when Walsingham was running the secret service in the late 16th Century, but I think we've moved on.

It is an opinion that gets discriminated against a bit more than most (along with Anarchism) simply because the Media and the Police don't take either seriously as ideas.

Example: People planning republican protests during the Royal Wedding were arrested in advance and held during the event, to stop their protest being heard[1]. As far as I know, nobody was actually charged with anything, only arrested on suspicion of "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" and then released when it was all over.

Nonetheless, writing about the idea is perfectly acceptable, and a protest in a less sensitive area / at a less sensitive time would be "tolerated" (not that this justifies the censorship it gets sometimes.)

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/01/wedding-activists-...