I think that's true, but it's also true that the distinction between curious conversation and ideological battle is a useful and actionable one, and that's basically what the site guidelines are staked on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

So, if we can not avoid politics it is ok to encourage some views while discouraging the opposite views?

How can we know for sure we are right or even on the good side, whatever "good" means?

First we'd need to establish a general frame of reference, a perspective, which could be a human one.

From that perspective, the lowest common denominator is that bad is what harms humanity, e.g. by disregarding human rights. Human rights then becomes the new frame of reference, meaning that something can't be good if it's not within that frame.

Power struggle then becomes what are rights, and who owes them to whom? Who gets what rights and how are they enforced is pretty much the core of political struggle.

Power struggle based on immediate and future system relevancy takes place within that frame (innovation), in a democracy that frame (human rights) shouldn't be broken because it damages the belief in the system itself. An informed society acts in its best interest, if it doesn't the education system or entire system is corrupted and broken.

Perhaps it would be better to assume (until clear otherwise) that everyone has good intentions, but a different persp ctive? Then we can try to work together, as partners, to understand each other's perspective and position, rather than thinking of others as opponents to be defeated.