[FireSparrowWeld]

I think you're talking about "discussing politics to shoot the shit" but I think it's really important you realize that you and I do that because we're lucky, and "eschewing discussion of political topics" is only something you get the privilege to do when you're not getting targeted.

[dang]

Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices in an argument is obviously abusive. We ban such accounts and I've banned these.

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

[boredemployee]

What, is the dude above using multiple accounts to make his/her point?

[jlawson]

Weird, that seems backwards to me.

The actually-oppressed stay in hiding. Whether they're gay in 1945 or Russian dissidents today, or political dissidents in today's western overculture, "eschewing discussion of political topics" is a mandatory survival strategy. I can relate because I am in this position - having to pretend I'm something I'm not on a daily basis in almost all contexts.

Someone who feels they can afford to speak politically on things others won't like must be in a pretty powerful position.

What do you think that person looks like to someone who knows they have to keep their mouth shut to not have their life ruined?

Having the right to even talk about your issues is an important and oft-overlooked privilege.

[Kloversight2]

> The actually-oppressed stay in hiding.

I hope you realize the comment you just wrote suggests that the oppressed should stay in hiding...

[peyton]

Huh? How? That’s not how I read it.

[FireSparrowWeld]

By suggesting that anyone speaking up/out isn't "truly" oppressed, because they have the privilege to speak out.

[boredemployee]

Yes, I'm totally aware of that.

[Kloversight2]

Then is it really a "totally different aspect"? You can't know the motivations behind why politics comes up in a conversation, and it's perfectly reasonable for someone who isn't the target of oppression to feel empathy for and advocate on behalf of the oppressed.

[dang]

Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices in an argument is obviously abusive. We ban such accounts and I've banned these.

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

[boredemployee]

I'm also totally aware of that.

Again, I'm speaking about people (family/friends) that I know their background and I know that it is a huge waste of time trying to argue against their biased POV of "good old days of dictatorship". I'm talking about people that don't care about the oppressed.

[Kloversight2]

And I'm talking about the fact that those are the very people with whom you should be discussing these things the most, no?

[projectazorian]

It’s not worth trying to convince such people, the chance of success is very low and such discussions tend to get very uncomfortable very fast. Once you’ve established that someone supports authoritarian dictatorship, your engagement should be restricted to telling them such views are unacceptable in the space (if applicable) or correcting errors of fact for any onlookers.

But if you don’t already know the person’s views, it seems unwise to assume that “old person = supports the old regime,” since this will result in you missing opportunities to connect with potential allies.

[Kloversight2]

> Once you’ve established that someone supports authoritarian dictatorship, your engagement should be restricted to telling them such views are unacceptable in the space (if applicable) or correcting errors of fact for any onlookers.

Even as they metaphorically step on the throats of the people you care about?