[soganess]

  > “so desperate to contend”

The only thing desperate is people plugging their ears and lalala-ing “HN is not for politics.”

The tech talk here is embarrassingly shallow. Depth is now the rare exception. If I want deep dives, I’ll go see about some crabs. This place now exists to launder the tech worldview, and that’s an inherently political act. Pretending it isn’t doing that is political too.

Like most folks here nowadays, I primarily come for the politics. The difference is I’m not lying to myself about my posture.

[swed420]

I still primarily come for the tech/hacker vibe, but also understand and accept that continually hitting snooze on important political items will threaten my future ability to enjoy the former.

I also respect the fact that this is run by an SV incubator and everything that entails. Out of all the discussion platforms, this one is still the most sane, for now. Moderation is a thankless job, and they do a pretty good job with that around here compared to all of the alternatives.

[soganess]

I consider myself extremely confrontational on here (especially compared to myself in meatworld), but in my 13 years on HN I have had only one direct disagreement with dang, and it was about the definition of the hazelnut spread Nutella.

I am sure he and I disagree on most things, but I don't fault the primary moderator. In general, dang seems pretty laissez-faire. I am venting at the flag brigade: what news gets flagged, and more importantly what doesn't.

I come here to stick my thumb in the wind and see what the prevailing tech view is. As for the tech itself, I am more "if I learn something cool along the way, neat," so I guess I am here for the vibe as well. I just wish folks were more honest about what HN is (like you are being here). Things change; it's okay for them to change.

[zahlman]

> The only thing desperate is people plugging their ears and lalala-ing “HN is not for politics.”

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

[soganess]

Do you honestly think I have not read that before?

I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time. I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time on a different internet with a different HN.

NOTE: I slightly restructured this without noticing the reply. The poster below is not misquoting me in anyway.

[defrost]

> I don't even know where that is posted,

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

It's intentionally stochastic, outlining a preferred shape of topics and allowing exceptions that engage and promote novel and curious discussion.

These are novel and interesting times, no doubt, and yet there's still an exuberance of drum banging and closed minded repetition on various topics leading to many but not all of the current event threads being organically weighted down.

[waon]

The person you're replying to doesn't abide by their own stated principles. It's a mistake to think that they're merely reminding you of the rules. No, it's an order.

Just look at how many political comments they made. Especially the downvoted and/or flagged ones. They are horrendous. So many words spent justifying ICE murders and lying about how the victims were violent terrorists. They spend all day thinking about how best to downplay the egregious actions of the current regime, at one point writing how ICE agent's masks are just merely "face/neck warmers."

This isn't a person who should be taken seriously.

[TimorousBestie]

They also recently complained about their own experience being downvoted and flagged for ostensibly political reasons, which also cuts against the guidelines. It’s selective adherence at best.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46773004 (now dead)

Dang is right when he says that every politically-charged commenter thinks their specific ideology is the one that’s oppressed here.

[zahlman]

> Do you honestly think I have not read that before? Like seriously?

It immediately and completely refutes your position, so if you have read it then you have no excuse.

> I don't even know where that is posted, I just see folks quote it all the time.

It is in one of the links in the page footer.

> I obviously don't abide, those were written at a different time with a different HN.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The policy is there for a reason, and I'm confident that any of the moderators will happily tell you that it's meant exactly as seriously now as it was at the beginning. But you don't have to take my word for it; you can also email [e-mail].

[soganess]

I am so confused wrt what you are attempting to do.

I literally do not care what the policy says. Must I say it that way? The policy

  (1) is logically incoherent

  (2) is not policed in an equitable way

  (3) is used to launder a worldview to young tech workers just coming to hn

  (4) ... do I need to keep going? because I can keep saying stuff

  (5) is just random bits on a server

I don't like it, many people don't like it, it has a negative chilling effect on the hn community. I am regularly voicing my concern in an effort to create my desired outcome. FWIW, the folks that want the rules changed are generally the most aware of them.

[zahlman]

Respectfully, I completely disagree with you on every point (except that I trust that you could indeed "keep going").