Yes. Take the political rants to a site that encourages rather than strictly bans them. The internet is full of politics, is it so wrong that this one corner of it not be?

In that case this story should have been voted down or even flagged as it clearly is a political issue. Civil defence, the resurrection of the antagonism between 'east' and 'west', terrorism (look in the brochure, it is one of the discussed issues) - all politics. Even the history of the document itself involves politics, it being part of Sweden's avowed neutral stance in the east-west conflict.

It's a pattern of comments, not just this one.

Is is an ongoing issue that, when discussed, leads to the same conclusions. You clearly do no agree - which, given your posting history, also can be called 'a pattern of comments' - but that does not make my opinion less valid than yours. While HN is not meant for nor intended to discuss politics (something which you yourself also do rather often, as do many others) it is often difficult to avoid as politics touches many subjects discussed here, even more so now that social media and the accompanying #hash_tag_storms started to influence (and in some cases dominate, much to my chagrin) parts of the tech world.

Banning all political talk in not feasible. Banning political talk you do not agree with is censorship. Allowing unbridled political talk is Reddit. HN thus far has avoided the first, is partly guilty of the second and has not yet and hopefully will not devolve into the third. In an ideal world it would be possible to discuss these issues without the site ending up like a dung heap but alas, we do not live in such.

Do you want me to compile a list of examples?

> Would you be complaining if his tirades were all pro-immigration?

Avoided the question

I've answered it in another reply.