An issue like embryonic stem cell research is inherently political in the US, both because it often requires government funding, and it contradicts the religious beliefs of many people. I don't think it is a stretch to assert that attention is being called to these kinds of advances right now at least in part because people are concerned about the future of such a politically controversial area of research under a new, somewhat unpredictable administration.

So this was not an attempt to "atttibute everything to overt politics". Embryonic stem cells, however, are an overtly political issue in the US.

If it's not a stretch, why mention it at all other than to muddy the waters by injecting additional politicization to the HN community? If it's worth mentioning in this case, it's worth backing up that it's substantially different from other posts on HN, which requires more than an opinion.

I was replying to a comment in which the author was pondering how the new administration will handle the political side of stem cell research. Look at the parent comment. Why did you not criticize that one for being political?

I read the parent comment prior to my first. 'neuronexmachina is discussing the topic at hand. Yes, it adds politics. That's going to happen on HN regardless. What their comment doesn't do is imply unfounded intentions upon HN community members. That's unhelpful. Some are all too quick to attribute agenda to particular behavior on HN, particularly submission ranking. Without evidence, it leads to bad faith in discussions, and with political topics to be discussed well and civilly, we need an abundance of good faith.

> What their comment doesn't do is imply unfounded intentions upon HN community members.

You seem to be exempt from this rule, however:

> why mention it at all other than to muddy the waters by injecting additional politicization to the HN community?

Do you see how you were ascribing unfounded and unproven intentions to someone else for their comment? Your claim that "obviously, they must have done it to muddy the waters" is the perfect example of precisely what you complain about.

I dont think I was being uncivil at all. It's rare that an older article becomes #1 on HN. You think that has nothing to do with the fact that an administration that many assume would have a problem with stem cell research took over less than a week ago? It seems very important to you that you win this argument, so I won't respond further, and I am certain you will get the last word in. But for the record, I think this entire thread of replies by you is nonsensical.

I never claimed you were uncivil. I am claiming that making assumptions regarding the behavior of HN members, particularly on political topics, creates an environment that leads to uncivil behavior. How rare is it for an older article to reach the top spot? That's a potentially interesting question that can be answered with available data.

There's no argument to "win". After my second comment, I responded to your question. As for "getting the last word in", I only do so to refute the idea that I said you were uncivil. You're right that this is far off-topic now, and likewise I won't respond further.

From what I've seen, it's fairly common for articles and posts of all ages to reach high slots on the front page, including the first slot