Taking this as a serious question, it wouldn't be hard to make a list of topics that get instant flagging on HN. I suppose the reason why people don't bother is they expect any attempt to explain would also be downvoted to oblivion.
Question the legitimacy of gender fluidity. Wonder aloud whether some traditional social norms have societal value, even if the religious rationales are absurd. Wonder aloud if violence (perhaps only against property) will be required to bring about radical political and economic change.
Speaking for myself, I will say HN is more tolerant of good faith debate on the subjects than places like reddit. But I mean the real world. Despite being liberal and tolerant, I feel I have to be extremely cautious who I speak to about any doubt around certain social movements. To express reservation in some circles would not being debate, but only accusations of bigotry followed by public shaming.
A lot of discourse about China on HN seems to get pulled into perpetual "but bad things have happened in the US too" whataboutism and a sort of mild muffling. Not to mention the weird stuff that happens with topics like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171.
I mean the piece isn't really about traditional censorship as such, but social forces working against the expression of particular topics and acting to reduce their visibility.
> The whole Covid fiasco can't really be discussed on HN.
"Covid fiasco" is not a monolith.
On one side, there are people with a position "Covid is much less severe than we though, we should have just let it spread through population, and go on with out lives as normal, like we do with flu. The fiasco is that we tried to control it at all."
On another side there is a position "Covid is a more severe disease than we realize. It affects multiple organs, and after repeated infections some people will get long covid for years, or permanently. We should still aim to restrict the spread of the virus, not anymore with lockdowns, but with clean indoors air, and keeping using masks is crowded situations and in healthcare. The fiasco is that we gave up on trying to control the infections."
The real question is not so much "can I do it on HN or other niche forum X" but "can I do it anywhere where people with polar opinions can have a reasonable debate", and even more interesting "can I say this in public, where my face is in punching distance" and then the ultimate "can I say this in an election campaign" (at which point even basic facts are off limits).
I would wager most folks on the keyboard warpath (or podium/camera) would be much more civil with their alleged target if they were sitting across the table from them.
Are you implying that internet giving voice to people without power to do violence is a bad thing? Should only strong and powerful be given freedom to speak?
This whole thread is beyond the point, since the original commenter asked which are the topics that you can't discuss on HN. Your replies only confirm that Covid is indeed a topic that you can't discuss on HN.
---
I'll reply for completeness anyway:
> I can see why a forum would want to control what topics are on and off topic.
There's a difference between banning flamewars and banning any kind of discussion. I am talking about the latter, not the former, which did indeed happen during Covid.
> Obviously you can say anything you like on unmoderated places like 4chan, but what does that prove?
Indeed, 4chan was the place where you could see discussion about the Covid policies and the media claims, from masks to lockdowns and mandatory vaccines - in fact, it was the one of the only places you could talk about it. Many of the things discussed there turned out to be true.
Transexuals are not women, abortion is murder, the US and/or Ukraine provoked the war, average IQ of different races and how it explains their behaviour. There you have four things that will earn you an instant flag (perhaps not in this thread for obvious reasons)
And yet I still see them debated regularly. They're not forbidden, they're unpopular. A consequence of having a system of voting and flagging is that you won't always agree with the way people vote and flag.
> Transexuals are not women
As an aside, I've noticed a pattern that people fret endlessly over trans women and don't really take notice of trans men. I don't know why that is, but there must be a reason why it's so remarkably consistent.
Is it just statistical? Maybe there are more trans women? Or they are more obvious/apparent online. But it any case it is almost a simple true scotsman fallacy. They are a woman iff that is your definition.
Accessibility tip: Hit the “X minutes days ago” link if this has gone too grey to read.
A consequence of having a system of flagging is that dang can avoid having to do any work by having users remove other users' comments, keeping the site in one side of the political spectrum. (Just to be clear, I don't think he particularly cares which side wins, as long as it allows him to avoid any responsibility)
I propose as an experiment, you go make an offensive left-wing comment on a relevant thread (maybe "ACAB" or "eat the rich"), and see if it gets flagged and downvoted.
I read a bunch of right-wing comments on HN (including ones making good arguments), the reports of left bias on HN are greatly overstated.
I can't say I agree, if someone made a high effort post arguing for eating the rich, I personally would still flag it because I flag all calls to violence, whether they are low effort or not. (Some people say "eat the rich" to mean "redistribute wealth through taxation," if I could tell that's what they meant I probably wouldn't flag it, other people uh, don't. Maybe the recipe you referenced is a policy proposal, let me know if I've misread you.)
How is advocating for eating the rich a call for violence though?
Are you assuming it's a call to kill them rather than a plea to not waste the protein?
The thing many people fail to realise about the Fore people in PNG was that their cannibalism was a mortuary rite of reverance for highly valued in group members that weren't killed for sustenance.
Now .. given you might have gained a snippet of new infomation, how do you feel about upvoting this comment about eating high value members of society?
Hmm - a self evident non sequitur that fails to address a real point about the actual world and the assumptions made by people about both violence and cannabalism.
That's a poor comment from yourself- I'd hoped for better.
If you'd like a higher quality response, sophistry and performative disappointment isn't the way to get it. I'm not going to give a serious detailed response to an unserious comment, I'm going to find a better use for my time.
If you need further clarification about why I don't take it seriously when I talk about a meme about a violent uprising and you pivot the conversation to ritual cannibalism, I encourage you to consult your preferred dictionary regarding "sophistry".
If you want to convince me that you're earnestly trying to have a real conversation, being insulting isn't going to help.
I didn't pivot at all, if you scroll back you'll see for a fact that it was yourself that introduced the topic of eating the rich.
You advocated for raising that as a thread topic.
I'm familar with several dictionares, nothing I have said has been false.
Be explicit - what exactly do you consider to be sophistry here?
We can talk about prion disease and its relation to eating brain matter (the Fore and mad cow disease), the history of funerary practices, the European fad for eating ground up mummies, the UK practice of eating parts of executed criminals, etc.
All of these relate to the topic that you suggested .. and the topic you apparently wish to tap out on when faced with someone happy to take it on.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not interested in taking the bait today. Good luck finding the kind of discussion you're looking for. Have a pleasant day.
On the off chance this is a genuine misunderstanding (which, given you indicated that you understood I was referencing slogans, that cannibalism is a nonsequiter to a discussion of HN's political bias, that my initial response to you contained further clarification I was referencing a political slogan, and that you then peppered me with insults and attempted to bait me into an argument, I don't believe to be the case, but I've been wrong before), here is the misunderstanding:
> "Eat the rich" is a political slogan associated with anti-capitalism and left-wing politics. It may variously be used as a metaphor for class conflict, a demand for wealth redistribution, or a literal call to violence. The phrase is commonly attributed to political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from a quote first popularized during the French Revolution: "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich".
Remember, you're the one who introduced the brilliant idea of eating the rich into this conversation, and you're the one who replied even after you said you wouldn't, so you not only took the bait, you baited the hook with deliciously irresistible rich human flesh! Now that's some fine anthropophagic trolling!
> You do realize that sometimes rich right wingers advocate cannibalism too -- just not eating the rich
This book looks like satire. I have never met or heard of anyone who discusses "political cannibalism" literally. I think it's vanishingly rare.
> You're the one who introduced the brilliant idea of eating the rich into this conversation
I will not relitigate this. See above.
> You're the one who replied even after you said you wouldn't
Tend to your own knitting.
I'm a little confused why you took the time to respond to an old thread during the course of what looks like digging up receipts on a troll (which I have no complaint with, I agree with what you said about them). This is ancient history in my book.
Is there something specific you'd like me to take away from this? Did you just not like the cut off my jib? I honestly can't tell, I'm getting a chaotic neutral vibe.
ETA: I see, you feel that I am a troll, and you want to call me out for trolling. Well, noted. I disagree but it's not my proudest set of comments, I can't fault you for thinking ill of me because of them.
You are assuming that the topics I mentioned would be posted in the shape of short slogans, but they could be posted as long comments of several paragraphs and be flagged all the same.
Also there is no left bias. There is a progressive bias. Not exactly the same
That's not really what I meant re slogans, they were more examples of convenience. But I could have expressed myself better there.
When I see political comments get flagged, it's usually because they said something explicitly offensive or insulting. They'll sign of with an edit attacking downvoters, say something insulting about their political opponents, or reference a conspiracy theory. That will reliably get you flagged regardless of the position you are advocating.
