Hacker News Reader

Comment by paganel | Hacker News Reader

> It's insane that this gets upvoted.

Hacker News should just just ban politics-related discussions altogether. What you find "insane" and "monstrous" other people (which are not clinically "insane", just to make it clear) are regarding as being just the opposite.

Either way, neither of those two camps will find a "level-playing" discussion field on this forum, on any internet forum, for that matter, because I'm afraid we're long passed that point. Hence why I believe that the admins of this forum should ban all politics-related talk.

View on HN

but politics are interesting and stimulating!

Like, if it wasn't interesting, it wouldn't be politics. Nobody would talk about it. Lacking any controversy, HN would be a very stale place.

> Lacking any controversy, HN would be a very stale place

There's politics and then there's calling someone "insane" and "monstrous". Honestly, I don't see any way out of that. Yes, calling each other names in the name of politics would make any web forum less stale, I can definitely agree with that, but, again, I don't think that will solve anything.

Point taken

There's plenty of controversy and discussion on HN without politics... it's far from stale, even with clickbait transphobic articles appearing recently.

So where do you draw the line between politics and secular humanist philosophy? I guess it's not clear from the title.....

The title is irrelevant, only one point in the article -- teaching creationism in science classes -- is relevant to secular humanism, which decries religious dogma, and supports separation of church and state.

The rest is purely loaded opines and bigotry. Speaking of which, any reason you accused me of being "hostile" by making a reasoned point, then delete it? Seems rather disingenuous...

I was wrong.

> which are not clinically "insane", just to make it clear

Btw, insanity is not a medical term. It's a term to describe your fitness in a legal context.

When you're calling someone as "insane" you're not hitting him/her with the legal context, but with the DSM context.

There is no "clinical" or "DSM" context to insanity. Insanity is not a medical term.

Again, it is my strong opinion that the OP was using "insane" in its DSM-related form, i.e. its medical-related form. Yes, most probably today's medics (and today's DSM) has (have) become too prudish to have "insane" and "insanity" included in their official terms list, but that's another story.

Where is insanity in DSM?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com