Thanks for the clarification. It was non-obvious to me at first reading, but I can see the interpretation you outline now.
>And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is.
I would point out the /r/AskHistorians and /r/PoliticalDiscussion communities, which are surprisingly civil (at least for reddit). The latter community has guidelines for what makes a successful submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts . Both are mainly question driven, which I find refreshing. When we are reading news articles or research, the discussion can be extra reactionary and hyper-focused on the source and author, minor gaps in a study's coverage, or the specific circumstances of the story.
>And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is.
I would point out the /r/AskHistorians and /r/PoliticalDiscussion communities, which are surprisingly civil (at least for reddit). The latter community has guidelines for what makes a successful submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts . Both are mainly question driven, which I find refreshing. When we are reading news articles or research, the discussion can be extra reactionary and hyper-focused on the source and author, minor gaps in a study's coverage, or the specific circumstances of the story.