I know that the dictum to keep politics off of HN has been a dead letter for some time- especially since tech has become overtly non-apolitical in the last few years- but it's still funny to see pg himself breaking that rule.
> anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity
The article is more about phycology than politics, IMO.
It goes to show that people in tech are acknowledging more that the industry is not apolitical and has a very real social and political effect on the world at large, and are so dropping the pretense of lacking political interest. That and like the rest of the world, the tech industry has become increasingly politically polarized over the last half decade.
If people were all "accidental moderates," there would be no need to keep politics off HN. The problem is that people pick one of two tribes, and discussions get ugly. If people weren't tribal like that, less of a problem, it's just a bunch of people with opinions all over the place.
Eking out a decision from the great power jumble requires self-awareness about the forces that gyre and gimble therein.
Not all politics is tribal.
PG explicitly establishes two different cohorts, each with its own way of thinking, from the outset. His argument reifies tribalism.
That doesn't make sense, or you just don't understand my usage
Talking about issues is inherently a conversation about politics itself, insofar as the power dynamics involved in making decisions don't magically disappear when we don our academic or self-referential hats. And talking about politics inherently touches the base issues that underpin the discussion, otherwise there is no objective way to judge right and wrong, strong and weak.
All politics satisfies both conditions. All politics is about issues, and all politics is meta.
In other words, your "usage" is not really meaningful.