For a site that supposedly prides itself on discussions that gratify one's intellectual curiosity, there certainly are some jarring taboos on acceptable topics to be curious about.
True, and I think there are lot of deniers of how the racist history of the US influences its racist present.
The mindset that permits people to shrug off the killing of Elijah McClain, and assume he must have done something to deserve it, is the same that celebrated public lynchings.
Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? Especially not the ideological flamewar style? We're trying for something other than scorched earth here.
They're being completely civil. This does not at all sound like an "ideological flame war."
Racism in society isn't an ideologocal point. It's reality. They're pointing out facts that are uncomfortable.
If the "spirit" of HN is truly about intellectual curiosity around things that relate to tech and entrepreneurship, then HN needs to embrace the fact that society ultimately rules over all -- most certainly tech and business.
I fear that your comment here and re-direction to "the rules" is a censorship attempt because this is an uncomfortable thing go think about. Is HN a place where discussion about social problems that infect all of tech, business, and entrepreneurship not allowed? Is talking about racism "ideological"?
HN has been having lots of discussion about racism, just as the rest of society has been (or rather, societies, since many countries are represented here). If your question ("Is HN a place where discussion about social problems [is] not allowed") comes up, that can only be because of unfamiliarity with the history. If you want to get more familiar, HN Search is a great resource (see the box at the bottom of every page).
> I am a strong believer in the right to have a gun in your own home and the various “Castle” laws. If you break into my house or try to take my car while I am in it, I am going to assume you mean me harm. Shoot first then call the cops.
Do you know how absurd this sounds to people in actual civilized countries? Kind of amazing how many of you Americans are living in some Wild West fantasy.
I would much rather live in a world with fewer guns. But, with the proliferation of guns in the US, what is the left suppose to do when confronted by an armed assailant in their own home? We are not going to get rid of guns in America. What other protection do you have?
4 in 10 Americans live in a gun owning household. That number is probably greater in the south.
It’s probably even greater for someone willing to break into your house.
Guns in the US is a “gravity problem” no matter how much you complain about them, they aren’t going anywhere.
We live in a country where the far right is arming up and when the left wants to “peacefully protest” and exercise their first amendment (not saying it always ends up being peaceful), the far right is “exercising their 2nd amendment”.
Which side do you think is going to come out ahead?
Othering and belittling pours gas on an already polarized topic. If you can't talk about the issue without going there, then you aren't equipped to change minds. If the [keyboard] is mightier than the [gun], then one must show even more restraint in its employ.
Do the police in your country have guns? (Trick question. The police in every country, even Japan, have guns.)
If an armed attacker breaks into your home, would not the first thing you do be to call someone to bring a gun over quickly to protect you and bring an end to the risk?
This is no different than keeping a fire extinguisher in your home versus relying 100% on the fire brigade to protect you.
Firearms are safety equipment, nothing more. The fact that you equate a common tool, used in every civilization in the world, to “some wild west fantasy”, says more about the baggage you attach to it than that which exists in reality.
In the case of the US, if the criminals have guns and the law abiding people don’t, where does that leave the law abiding people?
It’s just like what happened when Reagan was the Governor of California. As soon as Black people started peacefully “exercising their second amendment rights”, both Reagan and the NRA were all for gun control.
I mean there is quite a number of countries where regular police are prohibited from carrying firearms, or at least don't carry them anywhere so casually.
I bet those same countries don’t have the love affair with gun ownership and easy access as the US.
That still comes back to the same question - if the criminals have guns and neither law abiding citizens or the police have guns, where does that leave the law abiding citizens?
