zlacker

I'm sure an account named Emma_Goldman comes by these sentiments honestly, but please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. We want curious conversation here, not tedious talking-point battle.

You mostly do a pretty good job of avoiding that, for which we're grateful, but on the other hand, (a) we have had to warn you about this before, and (b) this subthread is a classic generic flamewar tangent—just what we want to avoid on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769470.

>>dang+(OP)
> We want curious conversation here

And the multiple hundreds of "oh so sad rip i'm not a royalist but..." posts above are _curious_ and don't need discouraging?

>>dang+(OP)
I appreciate the job you do and know it's hard. But I am not quite seeing this. How is a thread full of panegyrics to the Queen on the front page of HN curious and non-ideological, but me questioning whether - as one of many posters eulogized - that she was a 'moral authority' incurious and ideological?

Maybe it did fan the flames of controversy to question the deification of the Queen, but the deification of the Queen is controversial. I live in Scotland, I know. Surely the right thing is to just ban threads like this in the first place if you don't like ideology.