5 ms·

You've touched on a need I've often felt as well. Frankly, I enjoy debating politics and would enjoy doing it here on HN if it weren't for the fact that I've mo

You've touched on a need I've often felt as well. Frankly, I enjoy debating politics and would enjoy doing it here on HN if it weren't for the fact that I've mostly internalized a !politics filter, which there seems have fairly strong consensus. Still, a forum for political debate that's both open and inhabited mostly by the reasonable and well-informed... I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to see it. *Edit: as for the why, I'd argue that most non-tech editorials shouldn't be here, period. Krugman's in particular -- even though I often agree with him -- because he's partisan and something of a lightning rod for the right.

mseebach 15y ago
> Still, a forum for political debate that's both open and inhabited mostly by the reasonable and well-informed... I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to see it. Probably not: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- mseebach 15y ago
  Why is this being down-voted? Paul Graham wrote a very well though out article on why debating politics, even with the best intentions, is extraordinarily difficult. More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities.