zlacker

But they're not matters of red-versus-blue United States partisan politics, which is (as far as I can tell) what's being banned here.

>>clock_+(OP)
I dunno. Facebook shapes epistemic closures for its users. The question of whether transgendered folks have the right to exist is one that gets a "no" in some of those groups.

I don't think that should be political, I don't think it should be red-versus-blue. But it is. Should that be banned?

>>clock_+(OP)
It is an incredibly vague rule that probably just means "If this offends someone we want to do business with, we'll nuke it"

But it is no secret that US conservatives are a lot more pro-fossil fuels and US liberals are less anti-renewables. In that context, who is in power determines who is approving budgets and who is giving subsidiaries and incentives.

To remove the ability to acknowledge the political aspect of things would lead to

"I wish we spent more on wind power." being responded to with "Well, we would if <COMMENT REMOVED DUE TO RULE VIOLATION>"

>>clock_+(OP)
That's not my understanding, though I can see how you might come to that conclusion, given recent events and the lack of detail in the submission. 'dang clarifies in this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108614

We can clarify, though. The main concern here is pure politics: the conflicts around party, ideology, nation, race, gender, class, and religion that get people hot and turn into flamewars on the internet.