zlacker

It's understandable that they get flagged because people can't talk about these topics without emotions and it almost always derails into a flamewar.

>>Pannon+(OP)
The implications here are interesting -- that discussing with emotion is something to avoid or that it's even possible to avoid at all. We're human -- as much as doing so has been a cultural aspiration for millenia in the West, it is simply not possible to decouple ourselves from our physical and emotional experiences.

In my mind, it's far less important that we try to address these topics "without emotion" (whatever that means) and instead focus on cultivating respect and curiosity and assuming good faith. This is a bit more congruous with the spirit of the site.

There's another Western cultural aspiration involving an impossible decoupling, probably more common in American culture than European, which is to depersonalize politics. But politics is about people, and some people are much less immediately affected by political and social issues than others -- there's usually a great many layers of indirection between the articulation of a regressive point of view or support for a particular law or politician, and e.g. a minority being squished out of tech or a parent who was a victim of a hate crime or a queer person's suicide. There are probably especially many layers of indirection when it comes to a lot of tech workers, given the demographics.

In any case, when discussing politics and issues of class and race it's important to recognize that you're not talking about something abstract, but people, and their loved ones and families. Given that, it's hardly a level playing field if we start with the expectation that folks will leave emotion at the door

>>vector+f5
"Discussing with emotion" is an euphemism for "saying things that you would not normally say unless you were thrown off kilter by your reaction to what you had just read."

>>vector+f5
I find the topics that are most likely to generate "heated" discussion tend to be emotional topics, but also they're more broadly important to society and just more interesting to discuss. That's why I tend to browse in /active[1]. Some JSON parsing command line toolkit re-written in Rust [4 comments]? Yawn..

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/active

>>vector+f5
I think it's more of an admission that internet discussions aren't analogous to in-person discussions, and have a way of dehumanizing the person you're discussing with. Combined with modern-day tribalism, it means that most online "discussions" on a particular set of topics are more about virtue signaling and displaying tribal membership than they are about convincing others. As such, it's not unreasonable shorthand for a forum to avoid such topics en masse, as when allowed, they tend to drown out everything else.

>>Pannon+(OP)
> people can't

If some people are prone to lack of control, that implies little for individuals.

Yes some of us can reason.

>>whatsh+k6
Sounds like you were just thrown off kilter by your reaction to what you had just read and are discussing with emotion.

>>Pannon+(OP)
Exactly, and often it feels like the most inflammatory version of the story has been posted, precisely to cause a flamewar.

>>cirrus+cn
I think I'd normally say something like that. ;-)

>>whatsh+k6
I'd assume that "good faith" would cover that aspect too.

And I feel that's a comment issue more than a topic issue, so it's odd that HN punishes a post topic for a commenting issue.

>>vector+f5
The emotions that most commonly arise when discussing politics online are negative ones: anger, resentment, powerlessness.

If you act out on the anger or resentment, no one wins anything. At that moment, it's a good idea to make an effort to argue from a purely logical standpoint instead of just insulting the person you're arguing with. I think that's what most people mean when they say they want to discuss "without emotion".

>>ryandr+d7
>Some JSON parsing command line toolkit re-written in Rust [4 comments]? Yawn..

I imagine people come here preceisly because they are that niche that wants to deep dive into those specific technical topics. I wouldn't be surprised if a topic like that could get 100 comments here and barely get a dozen comments on reddit/4chan/etc.

current active example:

>List of APIs that require declared reasons (developer.apple.com) > 144 points by todsacerdoti 21 hours ago | flag | 309 comments

The general topic is interesing, but the actual link and "literature" is well... a technical document for IOS developers.