Politics is inextricable from human life, news, and technology. Any story here can be political, and that should be fine. Whatever my political leanings, I had an issue with this sentence:

> creating opportunities for yourself where none seem to exist

The fact is that there were opportunities. In countries where education is free and accessible, there are always opportunities.

If the subject is spreading education, I will happily be partisan and political, even if you find it irritating. It's too important to ignore, especially when it's a core factor in this headline and story.

That argument isn't valid here and does not lead to positive contributions to HN. Why? Because the topic here is/was concrete: a biologist who made a discovery about lichens. To use that as fodder for an ideological argument is to take the discussion in the wrong direction: away from something that gratifies intellectual curiosity into something that does not, however important it may otherwise be.

Intellectual curiosity is HN's core value. Curiosity is gratified by things that are specific, so the specific is precious here. Generic ideological arguments are the opposite: they're reruns of episodes seen many times, for which circumstances are interesting only as primer fuel, quickly to be discarded on getting going.

Worse, the energy they mobilize is agitated and the stance they induce is rigid. They throw people out out of the relaxed, reflective state that makes for good HN conversation, charging their reflexes and putting them into battle mode . From an intellectual curiosity point of view, it doesn't matter what the battle is—we end up with scorched earth either way.

It may be important to get people marching, but let's not march over a lichen garden.

Anything in that article should be open for discussion or debate. If the article didn't mention the education portion, then it would be in appropriate. However, it was mentioned in the article & I think it should be focused on equally for discussion and debate.

The discovery is amazing. What's even more impressive is that he received a free education in another country, with a home-schooled background.

For the most part that's no problem, as long as it's done in the spirit of intellectual curiosity and not ideological battle.

My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual. Someone suggested it was too political (or had political motives), and I replied that I wouldn't pretend I'm not political or that the topic isn't political. Plain facts (in this case that Germany has free education and that it creates opportunities) can be highly politically charged, and I don't see that as a reason to shy away from them.

> My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual.

At a minimum it pointed thither, since government programs and payment for education are politically charged and your comment read as advocacy in that area. You also used ideologically charged language ("poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps") which is the opposite of "purely factual". That explains why a user responded with "political bullshit" (which was also bad, btw, since it's name-calling by HN guidelines' standard).