On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I am far removed from what is happening in the 2016 USA presidential elections. As someone that has seen first-hand the politics of fear/hate/identity/class that has come to characterize this year’s campaigns, I can relate to some of the rhetoric (to mean that I have heard similar tangents, although in a more unsavory, vitriolic, and outright murderous tone). But that really is not the point behind my submission of this story.
There is a clear disdain among the HN folk regarding the submission of political stories due to the inherent risk of attracting trolls and eliciting comment wars- this is supposed to be a civil community and, in my experience, this continues to be the case. Indeed, as a young unlearned African man with a libertarian streak- and one that has previously encountered this association between racial and libertarian rhetoric, implicit and otherwise- I felt that this may be the best community to have this sort of conversation. Does the libertarian movement still provide refuge to the racialized aspirations of the white supremacists and the alt-right? Are there points of convergence? Is the marriage between the iconic libertarian Peter Thiel and the divisive Donald Trump emblematic of this convergence?
I am in the formative stages of forming my own political identity and a conversation along this line can benefit me greatly (and HN has, perhaps, some of the most qualified people to weigh in on the matter). In fact, a lot of my posts mirror my own developmental process as an individual, an aspiring software programmer and entrepreneur, and an active member of my local civic community (also, I love gathering information and I reckon that HN conversations are the bee’s knees).
No malice was intended by submitting this post (as a long-time lurker here, I deeply respect HN’s sense of community), but I totally understand if that is how the submission came across.
However, there are several aspects of politics that make "logical debate" rather difficult. The biggest aspect is that there is a LOT of money spent in political campaigns to misrepresent the opponent. (I'm not talking just Presidential politics but also state and local). Articles are not written to be factually correct but rather to influence your perception, whether that be by fear or by disgust.
In addition, all sides of political debate are not equally represented. For many subjects (e.g. fracking), there is much more money on one side of the debate than the other. P.R. firms are able to put talking heads on television with ease. The news organizations benefit because they are able to fill up the 24/7 news cycle, and the private interests benefit because they can push their views that earn them money.
Most important, you will never see a private interest provide the actual reason that they want something done. For instance, in the case of fracking, they will not say, "Fracking is good because that's where I get my paycheck." Instead, they will say, "My opponent says fracking causes earthquakes but this is anti-science and a conspiracy theory." or "If fracking is eliminated, then many jobs will be lost."
And this type of rhetoric only grows as the elections come closer. The posted article may be factually correct in some aspects, but it's actual purpose is not to educate you, nor to provide you with an improved sense of the world. It is designed to influence your vote and to associate libertarianism with the evils of the day.
Notice how they never bring up that libertarianism is inherently anti-war, pro-drug-legalization or pro-immigration. If their goal was to improve your worldview, that would be important information. Instead, they avoid it, so they can taint your view of libertarianism.
And that's called a hit piece.
Libertarianism's pro-immigration was my first point of contact and was immediately endearing. I identify with minorities that suffer as a result of racist nativism. However, I am still a little confused as to why exactly libertarians are still unable to shake off the accusation of racism [0]. These accusations can make this ideology seem rather unpalatable: I really need to understand. Pointers?
[0] This from Salon.com (I know, not exactly neutral arbiters, but still...) "Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right’s favorite movement" (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_pop...)
Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump? (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-...)
What is the libertarian view on racism? (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-libertarian-view-on-racism)
Question: Why do most libertarians seem racist? (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/3hi5...)
I have a hard time understanding reconciling that perceived view with actual libertarian perceptions.
(And of course, racists are present in all political parties.)