Thank you for the callout. I appreciate the warning, and the direct point to the guidelines. You're absolutely right, I have been tense and short-sighted, and

Thank you for the callout. I appreciate the warning, and the direct point to the guidelines. You're absolutely right, I have been tense and short-sighted, and have been in complete and blatant violation of each of the first 4 points you mentioned. I will take care to be more restrained with my emotion and contribute more productively and with substance. However I must say I do not know how to react to that last line, and I propose that this guideline is well-intentioned but too broad. I grew up (and I'm sure most HN posters did) at a time when we considered "politics" as something that is totally distinct from science and technology. What attracted us to tech was the meritocracy, the purity of ideas, the ability to pursue and explore that curiousity and creativity. Yet...the last decade has revealed at least some new truths that responsible technologists can ill-afford to ignore: 1) Technology cannot be disassociated from politics if it is wielded for political purpose. 2) Science has become politicized, and subjects like "climate change", "alternative energy", etc, are actively stifled for political reasons, so cannot be explored or developed without acknowledging their political counterarguments. 3) Ignoring political subjects that are independent of technology and therefore may seem frivolous or redundant to some people is itself a privilige. For example, US immigration or LGBT policies directly feed into the talent at US tech companies can hire, the culture they can sustain, and that manifests in the technological choices and outputs of these companies. This is why by and large, "diversity and inclusion" topics become such hotbeds of discussion on this site. So while I acknowledge your overall broad point and will strive to do better, I do think it is appropriate for me to comment or call out certain "political" or "idiological" points in the context of the discussion that is being had. For example, I do think there is evidence that the most highly-upvoted perspectives on the subject of Twitter/Facebook censorship are themselves political/idiological. The most heavily upvoted comments call out censorship of right-leaning news while not acknowledging the role of right-leaning misinformation under the guise of news. They claim to hold an absolutist position on free speech yet denigrate "cancel culture" (which is a form of free speech that has the potential to be harmful to societal majority in-groups vs protected hate speech that is only harmful to minority out-groups). I absolutely seek out those top-voted comments that are stating an idiological position and am looking to provide a counterargument. I have not done so with appropriate substance or care, and will do so from now on. But I cannot and will not in good conscience avoid those subjects as they are the most important issues of our time.