opsiprogram

Why is it not suitable? It is more of a tech / philosophical question than a statement about the poster's politics...

lol what?

Okay so I completely disagree with this, so try harder to convince me! Let me bring to the front, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand. She's a democrat, but of course a good republican would work here too. SO you painted with a tremendously broad brush, but of course Kirsten isn't a criminal. You're suggesting she is though? Is John McCain is a criminal? Who specifically are the criminals..?? Lets start with that... but I think maybe you're trying to make a point that everyone is twisted and greedy and these are such profoundly human traits that believing in a political party is a foolish choice because off course humans are evil, and the party leaders will automatically be "frauds, hucksters, and criminals" and a good person in politics is a myth. Maybe you should just come out and say that instead? Is that what you really meant? You don't really care about politics, you just think people are bad yea?

yea yea!

While I see the point, and I can agree with the points made that HN shouldn't be a "battlefield" for person opinion, I cannot accept that we will concede politics to be a topic to be too difficult for discussion, difficult conversations are the most important ones to have.

In the view you've put forward, you say that politics is the problem, a topic that when discussed causes fights and it can damage the culture of HN. I disagree. If we don't know how to talk about politics with strangers, we stop trying to persuade each other, and we bottle up our disagreement, and we go online and yell at someone else, or we vote for the candidate who screams our view... because we don't know how else to express it, to find the nuance in it, and ask ourselves hard questions. We'd rather have an opinion than not stand for something. All of the flaming is a way of expressing it...

We can suppress the conversations on HN to focus only on specific science or technology, but on a technology website in this age, and right now that seems like we'd be the website equivalent of a child covering their ears when they don't want to hear something. Blockchain tech, cryto, AI, mesh networking, job loss from automation, cyberwar, Quantum C. Seems incorrect to suggest that technology and politics can be separated easily (especially at a big picture).

Of course this is the internet, people come here to troll and fight. But we as individuals can always walk away. We can douse the flames by not engaging in it ourselves. We can always handle a conversation with care, it's not the topic that is emotional, it's us. It isn't up to the community to stop people from talking about touchy subjects, so that we all get along, it's up to us to learn how to talk about these things better. On the net, just like in the world.

The experiment shouldn't be to stop political discourse, but encourage it. See where we go, go forth and be critical thinkers and talk about the hardest topics facing human civ right now. Lets see what happens. Maybe that is naive, but we gotta start somewhere. Discouraging the conversation isn't a start, its an end.

Okay, so other news sources also can be biased/wrong/misrepresent science ... how does that make this Breitbart article more accurate? or Breitbart a more objective news source?

tomp maybe Breitbart got brought up for content like this: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes...

It's mostly unsubstantiated claims, without scientific rigor to back them up (ex: they cite papers but misrepresent the findings), and heavily mixed with personal opinion. Breitbart may have been right about the election, but that doesn't really seem to be because the website is dedicated to clear objective journalism... Wouldn't you agree?

Still, article could be correct, you're just taking this chance to let people know you don't approve of the NYTimes, not actually making an critique of the content itself....

haha kilroy, you can't say "No offense" and then proceed with "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about" obviously offense was intended, literally how could you express the idea that someone hasn't considered all possibilities in a more offensive way?

This article is almost a conspiracy itself! Haha I really went through it slowly, and unless I missed something...it really doesn't seem to read the government was repressing documents...more they just struggled to find all the emails. From what I can tell no document was revealed which shows Snowden really raised concerns in the way he claims. The title of the article is definitely misleading and sensationalist.