[jackyinger]

That is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about escaping that.

I’m frustrated with how narrow of view people here are taking on politics.

Partisan politics has grown into a nasty oppositional quagmire.

But, Politics in general is defined as “The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.” From a duck duck go search. That is pretty broad.

Open your minds! There is more out there than you think.

[AlexandrB]

But Hacker News is full of "hackers" and computer science grads. Why would you expect to find nuanced discussion of governing here? I don't come to Hacker News for discussion of surgical procedures either because the surgeons are not on here.

This might be heresy, but a CS background doesn't make you an expert on government, governance, or politics. Just as politicians seem woefully uninformed on computer science topics. So a political discussion on Hacker News will naturally lean towards popular conceptions of politics: that is partisanship, slogans, and the other stuff that makes social media politics so toxic. "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation" is not going to enter the picture.

[jackyinger]

I guess I’m making the mistake of assuming others have taken a similar intellectual path as I have.

I’m an Elecrical and Computer Engineer (ECE) by schooling. But I did pay attention in my mandatory liberal arts class. I took a Political Philosophy course, and a 400 level History of US Foreign Policy, where I was the only non-history major.

People inevitably opine on government/politics. And because of that I think they should delve deeper. I think that delving deeper and having civil conversation are how we escape the toxic mess media currently dishes out.

[AlexandrB]

I think the danger with political discussion is that the expression of an idea is as important as the idea itself. This means that to have a productive political discussion you either need:

1. Very very high verbal skills so that each person can communicate their idea in a way that doesn't leave (much) room for interpretation or a bad-faith reading.

2. A community that "steelmans" each-other's ideas and consistently chooses the best-faith interpretation of what the other person is saying.

(1) is impossible in a forum that accepts folks from a range of backgrounds and abilities. (2) is generally impossible in a public forum on the internet. Even if everyone on Hacker News stuck to this principle, outsiders would not. You'd get posts on reddit about how "Hacker News is a haven for Nazis". Or posts on X about how "Communists are invading the tech community" and ultimately a lot of bad press for Y Combinator that I'm sure they'd rather not have.

[jackyinger]

Great points, I absolutely agree.

[sillyfluke]

Failure of 1&2 is why there are flame wars yes, but I thought the motto on here is often "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

> (1) is impossible in a forum that accepts folks from a range of backgrounds and abilities.

This by itself doesn't account for why there is significantly less low-value political comments on here than reddit, to which (1) also technically applies. For (2), taking the best-faith interpretation is already in the HN guidelines. I'm also guessing that the mods let many flagged politically posts by users stay flagged because from experience they "know" which posts will trigger flame wars or low-value comments from the community because of the "past performance predicts future performance" thing. (ie, the unsaid thing is they don't trust the community to obey 1&2 on those posts due to past track record).

I for one would love to read past discussions of historic political events as they happen live from a community that includes industrialists of the past and their well-paid or high-skilled employees as well as people from academia in related fields. So why limit posterity's ability to do the same?

[nospice]

> I guess I’m making the mistake of assuming others have taken a similar intellectual path as I have.

Oh, come on. I know a lot of people who are highly educated and intelligent but fall for the same outrage bait as everyone else... we're bombarded with so much political talking points that we don't carefully consider every headline, verify every source, and then publish nuanced takes on social media where the stories change every hour.

The bottom line is that, with all respect, I absolutely don't care about the political hot takes of people on HN. And I'm sure they don't care about mine. I know where to go when I want to talk politics. If I want measured takes from scholars, I can read their columns or blogs. If I want to argue, I'll do it with family and real-world friends.

[PsylentKnight]

I agree, but I don't know of a better place to discuss current events on the internet. I can at least expect that the people are educated and intelligent (relative to the average internet user) and there's a cultural of thoughtful discussion.

Every Reddit thread I see on politics these days is just... rabid seething. At this point they remind me of how my elderly far-right relatives posted on Facebook circa 2010. I broadly agree with them (orange man bad) but there's so much misinformation and sloppy thinking that it's useless. There are probably some smaller and more thoughtful political subreddits out there, but if so I haven't found them

EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, I disagree with your sentiment that we should leave the politicking to the politicians. Democracy requires a population that has some idea of what's going on. I think discussion and disagreement is a great way to sharpen one's thinking