So extrapolating HN is more global than US oriented.
Many posters demonstrate this through their language (why say 401k when you could say pension scheme), assumptions (guns are legal), and the scope of their posts and commentary.
You only need to read threads on crypto, gun control, politics, etc for this to become abundantly clear (irrespective of the side of the argument taken by a commenter).
Of course, there are exceptions, but, by and large, HN does seem to be like this.
Many posters and comments just _assume_ a US frame of reference without stopping to consider whether a global one, or a non-US one might be better.
I wonder if the American Python community (for instance) even realises Guido is Dutch. Or marvels at his fluency in English.
Many HN participants are FAANG and so US centric thinking is strong, noting of course the huge disparity on pay and conditions and inside and outside the US.
There may also be a time of day effect. I'm gmt+10 so maybe I'm camping on end day ranked stories, responding to midnight owls in the US who tend to more extreme views.
It's a cultural thing. For decades the US has aimed to export its values, democracy, world view, etc, to other parts of the world. They think of themselves as the world's protector, the upholder of what is right, the benchmark for freedom and liberty in the world.
This is not to say those values are wrong - I think, by and large, they are indeed good, but the arrogance with which they are expressed by the US often just doesn't help.
This is a superiority complex which is ingrained and, frankly, tiring -- there are many places in the world which can legitimately claim those accolades, but many US citizens just seem incapable of acknowledging that.
>This is not to say those values are wrong - I think, by and large, they are indeed good, but the arrogance with which they are expressed by the US often just doesn't help.
Just because something is a "geopolitical reality" doesn't mean it isn't cultural
Remember also that the USD is the world's base currency, it is the currency in which oil is traded globally (petrodollar). This means that monetary policy in the US has _far reaching_ consequences around the world in a way that any other currency bloc just does not.
So its not mirroring anything -- it's unique.
And that thing about the fiscal process for the federal budget meaning on many occasions, all federal workers are simply told to stop. Unreal!
US media is quite progressive overall. US education system is quite progressive overall. I am amazed the women of America did not rise up and slaughter their political classes and judges in the red states and the federal courts, but that goes to my bewilderment at the mixture of progressive and regressive tendencies which make up America.
To all practical purposes at this time in many ways the US is an illegal theocracy operating in a nation state which constitutionally forbids it. More of them are practising Christians than any other comparable democracy. Yet, they legalised cannabis and stop kids drinking until they're 21, after they can die for their country. It's strange.
HN isn't only about America, but the progressive regressive questions tend to be from an American perspective.
Then perhaps you probably don't know much about American politics. Until recently, there wasn't a huge gender gap on the issue. [1]
> You are to all practical purposes at this time in many ways an illegal theocracy operating in a nation state which constitutionally forbids it.
The declaration of independence explicitly says that our fundamental rights are endowed to us by our Creator. [2] The pledge of allegiance calls the US "one Nation under God". [3] The US, unlike France [4], isn't afraid of God.
[1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.a...
[2]: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
[3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
[4]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-...
A previous generation of the Supreme Court upheld it's complete irrelevance. Maybe that will change again, but I struggle to see it really. This current court is black letter law, if the 1770s didn't require it, then it takes heavy process to make it happen, for them.
The stats on views of abortion were fascinating! Thanks. I am unsure yet they go to my side of things or yours. The definitely legal and sometimes legal count, appears to me to be consistently pro abortion rights. They've just had flat denial from the court on a federal right and a push back to (often distorted) states rights. You think this isn't going to hurt electorally? You know what: I don't know. I think it foolish for me to even try.