Im not sure why citizens of representative democracies would want to inhibit political discussion. Presumably one of the benefits of living in such a regime is the ability to participate in policy formulation through voting, political campaigns and various forms of public service. As a result, would it not be reasonable to assume that most of these individuals are very knowledgeable about a variety of aspects of public policy? Therefore the majority of political discussion would be rigorous, fact based and consider a wide variety of points of view.
Analogously it would seem that citizens of dictatorship-based regimes don’t have to worry about these details (hopefully the dictator and their lieutenants have taken care of everything) and can focus on enjoying their lives.
> Im not sure why citizens of representative democracies would want to inhibit political discussion.
It's turning HN into r/politics, I personally don't come on HN for that, there is already many many places online where political discussions happen, like reddit. When I say politics here I'm talking about USA cantered partisan politics.
HN is a great place for tech discussion AND it's also an opportunity to talk directly to founders, or important people and technologists in IT, in a better format than Twitter. I'd like for HN to stay in that niche.
How though? You don't have to click on the discussion? Just ignore it and move on to the next item. I do think it might be a good think to require a [political] tag or something though.
At 41, I'm not sure I'm old enough to comment on "how things were", and I'm not enough a student of history as I should be. But I believe the current trend across the globe is from democracy to autocracy[0], and toxic political polarization[1] is moving opinions so far apart as to effectively eliminate meaningful discussion about compromise or allowing yourself to change your opinion closer to what you believe to be a wholly terrible if not blatantly false perspective.
To rephrase, I don't think most discussions around policy involve providing peer-reviewed studies with relatively conclusive evidence in regards to a potential policy change, or objective evaluation of the communication, legislation and vote records of politicians. It is too easily converted into ad hominem attacks, bold assertions that one might believe have evidence but if (quite) thoroughly investigated might be disproven. More regularly each side dismisses the other based on strongly held beliefs formed on very shallow investigation.
On most of the political issues dear to me, it is impossible to have a scientific study decide the truth. To believe that science could; that would be replacing morals and beliefs with scientism, not far removed from religion and ultimately a worship of intellectual authority and the elite.
David Hume pointed out the problem with trying to draw moral conclusions from objective knowledge [0]. Since many political issues are essentially moral—what we should or should not do—the power of scientific studies to resolve them is limited.
> Im not sure why citizens of representative democracies would want to inhibit political discussion.
Generally, they shouldn't want to do this. In specific spaces, however, this makes a lot of sense.
From a more distanced perspective, political discussions are exhausting at best, as you need to discuss many varying aspects influencing a complex system, and harmful at worst, as soon as they turn toxic (which they tend to on some topics). Having a break from these is necessary. That doesn't mean we don't need those - having these discussions is important. But there is a reason politician is a full time job.
Additionally, HN has a very international audience. Internal politics is irrelevant to a large part of the readership - irrespective of the discussed country - and therefore these discussions are simply annoying.
>Im not sure why citizens of representative democracies would want to inhibit political discussion.
There is nothing to inhibit. An open political discussion on the internet between the left and the right is no longer possible. That train has left the station.
In the USA, yeah, because it's a left and right divide. Nuance gets completely lost and it's hard to find common ground because you may agree on one thing but then you'd have to 'give in' and lose face.
> Presumably one of the benefits of living in such a regime is the ability to participate in policy formulation through voting, political campaigns and various forms of public service.
As someone who has lived in both types of regimes, I can assure you that it is also one of the downsides of living in such a regime, as you yourself allude to in your last comment.
> As a result, would it not be reasonable to assume that most of these individuals are very knowledgeable about a variety of aspects of public policy?
This really doesn't follow from the premise, and I would argue is demonstrably false. No - most individuals are not very knowledgeable about them. Just as many who have the privilege to eat healthy still do not.
I'm not sure if you are being serious or satirical (if the latter, I salute you!)
It's healthy for all citizens to have the option of such discourse, and to exercise it regularly. I'm not sure it's healthy to feel unable to leave it for a moment, lest $_scary_opponent seize the day.
It is a representative democracy after all. Citizens should feel like they've done their duty after choose a representative. Not (poorly) running a thousand mini-parliaments online.
Analogously it would seem that citizens of dictatorship-based regimes don’t have to worry about these details (hopefully the dictator and their lieutenants have taken care of everything) and can focus on enjoying their lives.