zlacker

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+(OP)
Doesn't that sound like a very unhealthy national self censorship?

>>flexie+(OP)
Hacker News has pretty clear guidelines, and reasonably clear subject matter:

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Although a lot of people are (IMO) intellectually dishonest in what they really consider intellectually gratifying, rather than simply find themselves strongly agreeing with, or angry about. For instance, US immigration/border policies are something that I feel strongly about, but are they interesting from an intellectual point of view? I don't think so, particularly.

>>flexie+(OP)
Do you have any examples of specific topics?

>>alan_c+p
> Doesn't that sound like a very unhealthy national self censorship?

Fortunately, Hacker News is not a nation, and can censor all it likes to keep out all the crap.

>>davidw+q
I definitely think jurisdictional issues can be interesting from an intellectual point of view. Especially since the Internet has made many such concepts far less obvious. One could of course argue that discussions (especially outside of obscure technology) rarely reach a level where they become interesting.

>>subsys+M2
Most people here have a lot of domain knowledge about some combination of startups, hacking, and design, meaning they are quite qualified to comment about those things in an interesting way. Domain knowledge about legal issues is limited to a much smaller subset of people here, so discussions have a lot of strong opinions, but not a lot of basis in established laws.

>>clarkm+L1
Politics, race, immigration, gender etc.

>>alan_c+p
If the self constraint applies everywhere it's probably unhealthy but in some forums discussions on politics, race etc. are just not very fruitful and bringing up these issues could stand in the way of other discussions that have a better chance of leading somewhere.

>>davidw+v3
Domain knowledge about legal issues is limited to a much smaller subset of people here

This is true, but often times we learn quite a bit from conversations digging into eg IP law. The bigger (and unfortunately) more nebulous area is who writes the laws? That is a question of politics, why discussions have a lot of strong opinions.

>>davidw+N1
The post I was replying to was about US citizens, not HN.

BTW, who are you to say what is crap and what is not? I mean, I may consider your reply to be crap.

>>flexie+(OP)
I see a lot of Europeans ghost banned, for probably exactly that reason.

>>alan_c+Sh
> who are you to say what is crap and what is not

Someone who has seen lots of good forums wrecked by political bullshit. And to be perfectly clear, I do not mean "politics that I happen to disagree with", but politics, in general.

>>flexie+(OP)
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+2p
As a British Republican, that one stings. Very true.

>>tehwal+Ew
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+VG
I sincerely hope you're joking, at least among programmers!

You're right about national identity, though, a concept I would happily burn if it were possible. Worldview[1] is a terrible thing.

[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freel...

>>tehwal+ZI
Those three were all pretty much direct quotes. I don't know if programming would make someone particularly immune to this kind of reasoning though, in my experience it is to do with how much attachment someone has to the trappings of group identity, which can be quite disconnected from how they reason about other subjects.

>>davidw+N1
I remember when I first heard of the concept that you should not discuss sex, politics or religion in polite company. My thought then, which I still hold now, is that polite company sounds pretty damn boring.

>>moocow+QN
If you can't make interesting conversation without talking about sex, politics, or religion, that sounds like a problem with you.

>>clarkm+L1
The fact that HN is trying to fight so hard against negative feedback is actually a good illustration of that. For me, this has always been strange.

>>davidw+Yj
Politics seems to elicit a substantial amount of unwanted behavior from people who otherwise would behave normally.

I like forums that remove it as much as possible.

>>clarkm+L1
In the United States -

Abortion, religion, health care, gay marriage, immigration, welfare, guns.

To name a few.

>>ceol+TU
It isn't a question of whether it is possible to have interesting conversations that do not involve those topics, I enjoy discussing a wide range of things. It is more that having forbidden topics as an indication of correct manners enforces a weird kind of false sterility on human affairs and I feel cheapens and narrows the culture that these manners claim to protect.

>>moocow+QN
"Polite company" is just a polite term for people you don't know very well, but might not want to piss off.

>>flexie+(OP)
The thing about controversial subjects? They are so often a waste of time. People are set in their beliefs. Most of the time the best outcome I can hope for when the subject turns controversial, is that no bridges were burned and no one is particularly upset. Forget about actually changing opinions.

>>moocow+VG
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?

>>tehwal+ZI
Being a programmer has little to do with anything. You can be a good programmer and believe in race superiority, one doesn't exclude the other.

Even in subjects like social insurance you'll find an abyss among Europeans and US. I believe it has to do with how we grew up.

>>moocow+VG
This gives the impression that all British are pro-monarchy. While it's try that royalty is tied to national identity, the nation in this situation is England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales. You'll find very different levels of republicanism in each country.

Personally I'm pro-tradition. If I wasn't, worrying about the complicated but small-impact question of the monarchy would come after issues such as the de facto Christianity in our post-disestablishment country.

>>marshr+bA1
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-...

>>atmosx+iT1
I like to think that programmers are better than most at seeing the assumptions behind ideas, and testing them where possible (or taking the ideas less seriously if not.)

Maybe it's rarer than I thought to apply this to ones own social ideas, though. Shame.

>>tehwal+602
I like to think that programmers are better than most at seeing the assumptions behind ideas, and testing them where possible (or taking the ideas less seriously if not.)

Did you go out of your way to test the assumptions behind this idea before taking it seriously?

>>lotsof+RV1
How does a reply from one British person who doesn't think monarchy is a good idea, to another British person who doesn't think monarchy is a good idea, possibly convey the impression that all British are pro-monarchy?