I'm not sure that's entirely true, although I've seen certain topics frowned upon in a general sense (I'm thinking of politics). What do you have in mind?
Anything that can lead to flame wars is frowned upon and gets pruned in a number of ways. Political topics tend not to lead to useful, sober discussions.
Yes. Some subjects are very tricky to discuss. I have an example earlier: you wouldn’t want to come across as a Hitler fan. You can discuss these things in public, but have to be exceedingly cautious to avoid people misunderstanding your position.
If you're in the US, the reason for this above is because certain political groups have adopted a zero-tolerance stance on discussion on many topics, and viciously attack people who try to have conversations about them that aren't affirmations of their positions.
> I do not believe ideas and ideals can be discussed with the general public.
Although most cultures have always had at least some small set of "taboos" for which this was true, I believe that we're in times where that set is especially large, or at least it is for the above groups of people.
I never said anything should be forbidden, it's just a problem that happens from time to time that becomes somewhat larger when the subject of the discussion is largely inaccessible.
It's better to steer clear of political issues which are covered more than adequately elsewhere.
They are by their nature divisive and tend to make people upset and/or angry. This coarsens the atmosphere and makes reasoned and intelligent discussion far less feasible.
Consider it like a ban. The contentiousness is the point, not the subject matter per se. It doesn't have to be politics or religion necessarily - those are just the two subjects long considered most inappropriate for tabletime discussion.
Few consider this traditional recommendation disenfranchising, or a denial of peoples' individual special snowlake natures. It's just a necessary rule imposed to keep the peace, based on an understanding of how people tend to behave. (And by "tend to", I mean, of course, "basically always".) And when people seem to be voting against discussion of a subject here, you should take it the same way.
That's a good point. I forgot how highly politicized this topic is, which means there is a high likelihood for a flamewar, which means people would rather avoid touching it, which creates a conversation vacuum easily mistaken for a taboo.
I'm confused. Aren't such discussions banned by social norms everywhere for a very long time? I can't recall any public political or religious discussions at any place I've worked in decades.
Not at all. Actually, observing how it works for realities or the gossipverse, you can spot the same patterns in politics: multiple (in USA "both") sides on some topic cluster their statements around some event, like passing of some act or relevant news.
Setting the conversation agenda is specially useful to hide inconvenient topics from public scrutiny. Sex regulation, religion and other "social" controversial discussions are very effective to create noise and put in the background the economic problems, that have often more direct and severe consequences for most people.
There have been intellectually interesting conversations on such topics in the past, though I grant you that they are both rare and precarious. It wouldn't be good for HN to exclude such topics altogether, endless problems though they lead to.
If these topics are really that obvious to everyone then they should be written down (because it definitely isn't to me). On the contrary, they are pretty explicit about not allowing ANY discussion "remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society".
Now that I think about it, banning some kinds of political talk (discussing pay disparity, forming a union) is probably illegal.
> I think this has been borne out in practise for the most part.
That very much depends on the subject matter. Subjects that are at all politically or socially controversial are very likely to be under the control of one or the other side. If it's a "boring" subject that lots of people are interested in, then the page will probably be fairly balanced.
This is not an issue of free speech. It's a matter of considering others. You are perfectly in your rights to discuss what you will, but some don't want to hear it and it would behoove one to respect their wishes. There are places to discuss this kind of material, IMHO HN isn't really one of them.
Anyway, there used to be three topics that one never spoke of in polite conversation, religion politics and sex, because they always held the risk of offending someone. We avoid two here pretty well and we might as well avoid the third.
Which topics are taboo? That documentation is good? Or that academic use and industry use are different? Those topics are well discussed in the community.
On the other hand, negative ranting about how everyone is wasting their time, how particular people are terrible, or how charging money for a book is inappropriate -- those are discouraged, and thankfully.
reply