[Judgmentality]

I get what you're getting at, but that's not actually what I'm advocating for here.

I'm pointing out that multiple times a day a political post gets bounced off the front page, and it's frustrating that the conversations are being quashed. I'd just like to be able to talk about the stuff we know people want to talk about (upvotes are the simplest metric we have for this). And there's a very simple binary filter we can apply that costs very little overhead in terms of UX and engineering.

If I wanted to go somewhere else I would. I'm suggesting how we make this site better for users, or at least a sizable amount of them. And it would make almost no difference to the users who'd like to just ignore it. You can even have it off by default so only logged in members are able to see political posts and even then only opt-in.

I have zero expectation of this ever happening.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

> I get what you're getting at, but that's not actually what I'm advocating for here.

I know, I was just floating an idea.

> it's frustrating that the conversations are being quashed

I'm very much right there with you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42993029

[cmurf]

The silent ideological and political battle of flagging uncomfortable truths is trampling curiosity. Interesting how they get a way with violating the guidelines, and yet people who want to have a conversation are accused of and sanctioned for it.

The small mistake you make is assuming the users doing the flagging merely want to ignore it. They don't want anyone participating in it. The very topic is persona non grata. The guideline itself is written in newspeak.