Could you give me a rule of thumb to follow for determining whether or not a political discussion is appropriate for HN?
Submissions like this one are off topic here because they don't. They're too samey, and battle mode is incompatible with curiosity mode. We're going for something more parasympathetic.
Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. But I think I know the answer. Politics-oriented posts that get flagged into oblivion tend to be the ones where the facts favor the political right, and/or expose the moral or logical flaws of leftist arguments or tactics. I'm sure there have been exceptions, but this applies to virtually all of the cases I've witnessed, including this particular one.
>But I think I know the answer.
Isn't this called confirmation bias?
Anyway, as a classical liberal who probably shares your beliefs, the topic is pure flame war territory, which is toxic for HN. I don't think there is any intentional persecution of ideas, and the use of political labels makes some of us older people's 'eyes bleed.'
Pattern recognition is confirmation bias now? He clearly refers to cases he's witnessed where he's observed that particular pattern.
> Anyway, as a classical liberal who probably shares your beliefs
What are his beliefs? He hasn't stated any yet. This sort of thing makes people less likely to trust what you're saying, not more.
> I don't think there is any intentional persecution of ideas
There is absolutely a subset of people both here and on the wider internet who are involved in the intentional persecution of ideas. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help make the situation better.
I have the feeling that the quiet majority of HN readers are politically moderate and are curious to read a variety of reasonable perspectives on either side of the political divide in order to help themselves form a rounded worldview.
It's a noisy minority further towards the extremes that might give the impression that HN is strongly biased, and the direction of the apparent bias differs depending on the topic.