>> The scope of HN is not "everything that is new and interesting", nor is the point to "give others an opportunity to learn something new"
This is patently and provably false. Literally at the top of the guidelines:
>> What to Submit >> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
So yes, the scope of HN is quite literally anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, which for a lot of people involves political topics. Therefore, one is indeed doing those users a great disservice by flagging such stories.
The bit about what is considered off-topic is important as well:
>> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Note two things: it says "most" stories about politics etc., not "all" stories. And it says if it's covered on TV news, it's probably off-topic, not definitely off-topic. This underscores the original point I made: these are guidelines, and are meant to help users make the right decision. "I'm flagging this because it is off-topic because I say so" is not the right decision, and that is indeed why users who abuse their flagging privileges find that those privileges are reduced and eventually taken away.
> So yes, the scope of HN is quite literally anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, which for a lot of people involves political topics. Therefore, one is indeed doing those users a great disservice by flagging such stories.
There's a big difference between discussing a topic in the spirit of intellectual curiosity vs ideological battle. One can try to characterise the latter as the former as a way to justify anything as being within HN's scope, but it's quite easy for objective observers to see the difference in the way someone conducts themselves. Stories are off-topic on HN if most of the interest in those topics is from people who want to engage in ideological battle about that topic.
Also, re. this:
> I have no idea why I'm getting into this argument with a throwaway who might very well be a sockpuppet, but what the hell, let's do it
Please don't be snarky in response to another user who had posted a perfectly legitimate comment. Their account has been active for over four years and has > 3500 karma, so they're clearly an established and valued contributor to HN.
That's an emotionally manipulative way of dismissing their points that doesn't contribute to your argument, or to the site in general.
> what you are referring to are not rules, they are guidelines
That's semantics. When the "guidelines" are regularly adjusted, and when users are chastised or banned by the mods for not following them (even if not to the letter, but to the spirit of the law), then they are effectively rules.
> because what is old and uninteresting to some is new and interesting to others.
> you're robbing others of an opportunity to learn something new
The scope of HN is not "everything that is new and interesting", nor is the point to "give others an opportunity to learn something new". The guidelines, and moderators, are pretty clear that there are new and interesting stories that are off-topic because they veer into mainstream political news territory that invariably leads into flamewars that degrade the quality of the site.
There is a very good reason that politics are strongly discouraged/forbidden in the guidelines, and that users (including me) actively flag those posts: because that kind of discussion actively erodes and polarizes the community.
> when you do it, you're acting based on your own preferences
No, we're acting based on a basic understanding of human nature and experience with what happens when political stories make it through.
The fact that you weren't able to answer Esophagus4's points and data in the other comment shows that your position isn't defensible.