“non-rulebreaking” implies that there are rules stating that certain ideas are not allowed.

No it doesn't. The rules can be based around the effort, structure, and tone of your comments. Not the ideas expressed within them. I think the only "idea" not allowed is asking for violence and I've even seen those allowed.

Politics as a subject is strongly discraged on HN.

It isn’t about Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian ideas it’s about their red button talking points. So you can discuss say taxes or abortion as long as you don't bring politics into it or get repetitive.

What most often confuses people is you can get heavily downvoted or upvoted for expressing the same idea depending on who shows up to a given discussion about say Nuclear power, Bitcoin, etc.

No I can't, because my account would get banned. Probably under the pretext of the stated rule, "Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies, generic tangents, and internet tropes."

Those seem to be based around the relationship of the comment to the post it is in rather than any specific idea in the comment itself. As if any comment flagged for those reasons could have the same idea expressed in a relevant post and not be flagged.

That is what the text of the rules say, but not how they actually operate.

I tried to give you an answer. It only took about 90 seconds for my post to get deleted.

The ideas that break the rules.

There aren't any ideas that break the rules though. Just structure, tone, and context of comments/posts.

I don’t think that’s true.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32432564

Trying expressing certain looked down upon ideas politely and with a good structure, gentle tone, and within context, and see how far you go...