Dang, you are a patient moderator. I know I'm walking on thin ice here, and have not forgotten our previous interactions. Your reminder to not switch topics has

Dang, you are a patient moderator. I know I'm walking on thin ice here, and have not forgotten our previous interactions. Your reminder to not switch topics has been greatly beneficial to my discussions here, and off site. Regrettably, I cannot change my tone on these topics. A statement like "if they don't want to commit suicide, then suggesting it won't have an effect" does not deserve "curious" conversation. I have attempted to use HN for curious discussion. A perusal of my most recent comments includes the AVR-GCC compiler, carrier override of cellphone settings, Montessori schools, ChatGPT, content moderation, failures of renewable energy, and humanity's propensity for counting in 1,000's. Admittedly, the content moderation and failures of renewable energy were not received well, and were slightly contentious. But I do not see this as primarily using HN for ideological flamewars. You are correct that my comments here are "battle mode-y". Frankly, because HN has become swamped with things that aren't about tech and curiosity, given the sisemic political shifts in the country. Daily there are topics about assisted suicide being wonderful, calls to play Russian roulette with psychoactive substances, ministries of Truth being the greatest thing ever, and Google flagging "black owned business" being a marvelous idea, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot. These ideas herald the end of society. They receive accolades from the userbase, and attempts at serious discussion are downvoted without so much as a reply. In short, there is already an invisible ideological battle occurring, for which there are no repercussions. Must I feign curiosity? Must I simply ignore it?