zlacker

If it's the one I recall, it was about "how to talk to climate change deniers" or something like that. I flagged it (dang says to overflag rather than underflag in this regard anyhow). I'd have a hard time categorizing it as "not political". It's a charged political topic, the details of that conversation had nothing to do with technology, and almost entirely were about "how to argue with the people you disagree with" who happen to almost entirely belong to a single political party.

>>ocdtre+(OP)
> (dang says to overflag rather than underflag in this regard anyhow)

But only for this week. After that, maybe the other way around.

>>ocdtre+(OP)
I do see what you're saying however, climate change is not a political topic in itself. It is a scientific topic that has to do with the world getting warmer.

The article was not "how to argue with people you disagree with" but how to connect with an audience who does not believe in a scientific consensus due to misinformation. In fact the point of the article had nothing to do with arguing (or political parties), but rather empathetically connecting with an opposing viewpoint.

This is exactly what I meant from my parent comment. Because a topic has been hijacked by political parties we can't bring it up? Climate change = science topic. It is a well documented phenomenon that 97% of the world's climate scientists agree on [1].

Being on either side of the political spectrum is irrelevant here, as at its core this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with science.

[1] http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

>>dang+M
To my point though, couldn't any topic in the world be linked back to politics one way or another? I could understand if the guidelines were don't talk about political parties, politicians, policy, etc. However having a blanket "no political topics" opens the door to flag anything

If I post about the rising cost of computers, is that political since costs could be influenced by tariffs or gov policy?

I've always felt the HN community as a whole was respectful to political points and now seeing this be censored is a bit of a downer.

>>jc_811+A2
I sympathize with the sentiment you express here. In some ideal world where people are purely rational beings this might be the case. However, that's not the world we live in, and empirically has not been the case here on HN. You can see that on any climate change thread (at least any I've seen here). You mention in another comment that anything can be eventually connected to politics. I agree. And unfortunately some members will always make that connection rather than fighting against it to have a civil, constructive discussion. There are plenty of interesting topics that don't slip as easily into inflammatory political back-and-forth. Avoiding those that do seems prudent and which is what the HN guidelines explicitly state. And that's what the detox week is trying to reinforce.

>>jc_811+A2
Abortion can be categorized as a medical issue, I suppose. And perhaps even polling data or accuracy can be thrown in as statistics. This is a fuzzy line, which is compounded by the notion that members of political parties generally argue that their view is fact rather than opinion.

When you consider HN submission rules, it does indicate "more than just hacking or startups" and things that "gratify intellectual curiosity" are in, but also that politics is generally off-topic. On a topic like this that toes the line, you probably should assume it's further off-topic than on.

The very nature of an article that is about how to talk to someone with an opposing viewpoint isn't satisfying an intellectual curiosity, but positioning someone to persuade others. Whether you phrase it as "connecting with an audience" or not, it's inherently about an argument, and how to win it.

I would argue that a discussion of new facts or research uncovered about climate change is a submission about science, and anything specifically about "climate change deniers" is politics, or at best, "argument".

>>jc_811+m4
Yes, a great many commenters made the same point, and I agree with it. Still, some topics are clearly more political than others, and our concern is the ones that lead to flamewars that threaten the values of this site.

"Censored" is one of those words that mean so many different things it becomes hard to communicate with them. Use it if you like, but don't forget we're talking about just a one-week breather from politics. Or let's say "most politics" if the imprecision there is bothersome.

>>dang+C12
Really appreciate you taking the time to answer all of these comments & concerns. Guess it's time now to sit back and see where this takes us