zlacker

Doesn't that sound like a very unhealthy national self censorship?

>>alan_c+(OP)
> 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.

>>alan_c+(OP)
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+o1
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.

>>alan_c+th
> 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.

>>davidw+o1
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+rN
If you can't make interesting conversation without talking about sex, politics, or religion, that sounds like a problem with you.

>>davidw+zj
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.

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