From a certain naive perspective, it's not wrong. But in practice it's not a useful thing to say. It's a dumb simplification used by extremists who want to spam political ragebait everywhere, social decorum be damned.
You could make the same argument about physics. Everything is made of atoms, so everything is physics. Politicians are made of atoms. Does that mean every "$POLITICIAN does $THING" tabloid story is on topic for physics.stackexchange.com? Obviously not.
It is trivial to find things that are apolitical. Enjoying a beautiful flower or sunset for instance. You might argue they have little import, but they are nonetheless examples of aspects of life free from politics.
Edit: Of course, if you are driven you can layer politics on anything. But the political interpretation is a layer, not the actual underlying thing.
Not the OP, but off the top of my head: my love for my partner is not political. The meal we shared together last night wasn't political. The date we took to the beach the other week to sit on the sand and watch the sunset wasn't political. Those are not trivial things.
Glad we can agree, and it's my love that drove me to do those things, not my political beliefs or views. Therefore, the actions and experiences themselves have no affiliation with the political, regardless of whether you can try to warp the existence of the beach as a political thing.
We do not agree. You're lucky you're allowed to love the person you're with. But you having a good experience doesn't mean it's not political, it just means it doesn't affect you.
Love, as a concept, is highly political unfortunately.
You have the situation reversed -- you're layering politics on top of things that have nothing to do with politics.
Politics is fundamentally about the rules we want to impose on society to have it function the way we want. Those rules are not an intrinsic part of love, or food, or hobbies. Yes, the rules can end up affecting all those things, but that doesn't mean that those things are about the rules, rather the rules are about those things.
No, it's not. My love is absolute, regardless of the political structures around me. If I didn't have any grocery money, I would go out and find food in an act of love for my partner. If the beach didn't exist, I'd fine a way to make my surroundings unique, comforting, and beautiful in order to enjoy a brief moment of serenity.
> We do not agree
Yes, I see that now. You believe that love is dependent on external forces, whereas I do not.
If possible to have this conversation without devolving into flame war, I think it could be interesting - why do you think it's racist to point out that white anglo saxon protestants benefit from a status quo that was designed to maintain the systemic superiority of white anglo saxon protestants?
That would be the entirety of my argument. It's a simple, blunt assertion that those who say all things are not political are white anglo-saxon protestants. A large generalization against a group of people based on their protected status (race/religion). You did a neat trick where you rephrased OP's comment to remove the assumption and then pretended like you're trying to have an honest conversation.
> If only I had a dollar for every Redditor that has tried to explain to me how "everything is political."
That phrase may be an oversimplification, but I think it is important for people to recognize that politics is going to happen whether you are involved in it or not and the results will impact your life.
If you detach yourself from it, the results of politics will happen upon you regardless of your involvement, likely in ways that you do not like.
Given this, it is a good idea to be involved even if you don't really want to be.
I agree, but also politics doesn't have to be the whole of life. It's possible to live a life where political things are one of many boxes you give time to. What I'm talking about are the extremists who would try to argue my garden is political.
What a bunch of sophomoric blather. "Politics" is just how large groups of humans organize themselves. It can be done well or done poorly. It can be done with a thought to the most vulnerable, where minorities have rights and where it's not simply mob rule.
"Politics" is how we decide whether or not to protect certain aspects of the natural world from exploitation, and how much. Or how much to help people who can't make their own way in the world for whatever reason (illness, age, whatever).
I think it's actually appropriate here, and I'll try to articulate why. (Disclaimer: former history major here. I might be biased by my own interests.)
I'm reading "A Hacker's Mind" by Schneier and it makes a fundamental connection I've been trying to reason about for a long time. He looks at hacking through a very broad lens. He defines it essentially as the manipulation of a system using its rules to take actions that are allowed by the system but undermine its intent.
The key thing he says is that systems exist within and connected to broader systems. He gives the example of an ATM. Fundamentally it's a computer connected to a box of cash. You can hack it by manipulating computer rules. But it also exists within the broader monetary and legal systems, and while the computer's rules might allow you to execute the hack, the legal system will always treat that as an illegal action and prosecute you.
So what I'm basically saying is that as a matter of systems thinking, politics makes sense here on Hacker News. I think where people might object is that it can devolve into arguments about values and black-and-white thinking (arguably this essay does that, although I think the Burroughs quote about the bull in the ring approaches a systems theory aspect). Personally I enjoy thinking about this stuff though. Macro-level socioeconomic systems are the largest things we can think about aside from planetary-level concerns like geology and universe-scale stuff like cosmology. Their dynamics are very interesting and interact in many ways with the stuff we think of as more traditionally "hacking."
It's always been political. What's changing is the level and maturity of the discourse. Rarely do I see conversations where both sides are trying to be amiable and understanding. I could have rose-tinted glasses, but I strictly remember conversations here being a lot more nuanced a decade or so ago.
I see this type of post every week, every month… no it’s always been political. Tech politic — or government politic is just analyzing power structure.
Yea, but that isn't what HN has been for. It has historically been relatively safe from political stuff. For some of us it's rather sad to see it moving in that direction.
I hear you, and I'm sorry. As the others have already observed: Politics is everywhere, and very active politics have invaded the conceptual space HN is a facet of.
> It has historically been relatively safe from political stuff.
As a 53 year old who has been interested in technology for my entire life I'd say that in the past the technology industry has never been anywhere near as outwardly political as it is now.
When the front row of the presidential inauguration is every major tech CEO, well yeah politics are going to to come up in technical spaces.
tl;dr - The shift you are seeing isn't specific to HN.
> tl;dr - The shift you are seeing isn't specific to HN.
I'd argue that the problem isn't necessarily an occasional political discussion, but that all political discussion here feels like somebody copy and pasted a few longer-ish social media comments into an HN comment tree. It's as if the moment politics is mentioned, people magically forget where they're discussing it, and before long you end up with a flood of childish insults, flaming and nonsensical accusations of conspiracy.
> It means that politics is not the art of life. Politics does not sustain life or serve it. Rather politics is the organization of power, and power is the enemy of life. For the measure of power is its ability to make life what it would not be; to break, bend, control, crush, direct and destroy life.
This smells like anarchist writing to me. I never heard of this writer before, but a cursory search doesn't indicate they're an anarchist, but they are a "counter culturalist," a term I'd also never heard before but I can grok the meaning.
I guess this site thought is about "panarchy," which seems to be to be anarchy which lives in peace with other ideologies for the purpose of experimentation and full expression of humanity?
> In those notes the basic idea of Panarchy, namely “tolerance for all our tolerant experiments” is spelled out in the most convincing and rational way. Personal and social life is seen as a continuous experience in living where everyone learns from his own or other people’s actions and efforts and in doing so each person advances and develops. Without the freedom to experiment we lack the basic pre-condition for a rich and meaningful human life.
> In other words, Panarchy advocates full tolerance and freedom of experimenting in one’s life everywhere and for everyone.
I find that when I talk to people about the basic tenants of anarchy as envisioned by someone like Kropotkin, they're often surprised. They're expecting men in black balaclavas throwing molotov cocktails, and I'm telling them instead about sharing your extra food with your neighbors. There's quite a few anarchists in this tech scene, most prominent and likely known by readers here would be Moxie Marlinspike, creator of Signal.
If you vibed with the idea of the article here, namely that for some reason politicians seem to always be insane and doing mad things, you might enjoy some overviews of anarchism. Keith McHenry is local to people in SF, you may have seen the Food Not Bombs tables out and about, he rewrote the anarchist cookbook to be far more useful: https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html (skip the absolutely atrocious vegan recipes at the end. I respect the man as a thinker but my god not as a cook) or Kropotkin is probably the most readable historical anarchist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarc.... And of course David Graeber, whose frequently gets mentioned here, though his books are often quite long and academic.
I am the poster and what prompted this post was:
https://jruohonen.hcommons.org/2026/10/10/eukidsact/
And, yes, "we must call madness madness wherever we see it". But it gets kind of tiring because the insanity show just goes on and on.
> But now the game of politics has expanded to the point of embracing the whole of life. It claims to be the only game.
If only I had a dollar for every Redditor that has tried to explain to me how "everything is political."
Are they wrong, though? I have a hard time thinking of a single part of life that isn't actively being shaped or affected by politics.
From a certain naive perspective, it's not wrong. But in practice it's not a useful thing to say. It's a dumb simplification used by extremists who want to spam political ragebait everywhere, social decorum be damned.
You could make the same argument about physics. Everything is made of atoms, so everything is physics. Politicians are made of atoms. Does that mean every "$POLITICIAN does $THING" tabloid story is on topic for physics.stackexchange.com? Obviously not.
It is trivial to find things that are apolitical. Enjoying a beautiful flower or sunset for instance. You might argue they have little import, but they are nonetheless examples of aspects of life free from politics.
Edit: Of course, if you are driven you can layer politics on anything. But the political interpretation is a layer, not the actual underlying thing.
Can you come up with anything more substantial?
Not the OP, but off the top of my head: my love for my partner is not political. The meal we shared together last night wasn't political. The date we took to the beach the other week to sit on the sand and watch the sunset wasn't political. Those are not trivial things.
Your love may not be political, but what is your sexuality? Are you both citizens of the US, legal or not? Are you both healthy with good insurance?
You were able to afford food. 66% of Americans have said they worry about paying for groceries (as of July 2026).
The beach seems nice... will it still exist in 10 years?
You should be able to freely enjoy these things without thinking about politics. But it doesn't mean they aren't political.
> Your love may not be political
Glad we can agree, and it's my love that drove me to do those things, not my political beliefs or views. Therefore, the actions and experiences themselves have no affiliation with the political, regardless of whether you can try to warp the existence of the beach as a political thing.
We do not agree. You're lucky you're allowed to love the person you're with. But you having a good experience doesn't mean it's not political, it just means it doesn't affect you.
Love, as a concept, is highly political unfortunately.
You have the situation reversed -- you're layering politics on top of things that have nothing to do with politics.
Politics is fundamentally about the rules we want to impose on society to have it function the way we want. Those rules are not an intrinsic part of love, or food, or hobbies. Yes, the rules can end up affecting all those things, but that doesn't mean that those things are about the rules, rather the rules are about those things.
No, it's not. My love is absolute, regardless of the political structures around me. If I didn't have any grocery money, I would go out and find food in an act of love for my partner. If the beach didn't exist, I'd fine a way to make my surroundings unique, comforting, and beautiful in order to enjoy a brief moment of serenity.
> We do not agree
Yes, I see that now. You believe that love is dependent on external forces, whereas I do not.
[dead]
They are not wrong, those who say it shouldn’t are WASP who benefit everyday from the status quo.
Well, racist comments like that certainly only exacerbates the problem.
If possible to have this conversation without devolving into flame war, I think it could be interesting - why do you think it's racist to point out that white anglo saxon protestants benefit from a status quo that was designed to maintain the systemic superiority of white anglo saxon protestants?
> those who say it shouldn’t are WASP
That would be the entirety of my argument. It's a simple, blunt assertion that those who say all things are not political are white anglo-saxon protestants. A large generalization against a group of people based on their protected status (race/religion). You did a neat trick where you rephrased OP's comment to remove the assumption and then pretended like you're trying to have an honest conversation.
> If only I had a dollar for every Redditor that has tried to explain to me how "everything is political."
That phrase may be an oversimplification, but I think it is important for people to recognize that politics is going to happen whether you are involved in it or not and the results will impact your life.
If you detach yourself from it, the results of politics will happen upon you regardless of your involvement, likely in ways that you do not like.
Given this, it is a good idea to be involved even if you don't really want to be.
I agree, but also politics doesn't have to be the whole of life. It's possible to live a life where political things are one of many boxes you give time to. What I'm talking about are the extremists who would try to argue my garden is political.
Are you arguing the opposite? The redditor is correct. Just because you bury your head in the sand doesn't mean the world stops.
If you expect some arguments in this text, you'll find none. It is just some absolutist language, x is y and y is z.
What a bunch of sophomoric blather. "Politics" is just how large groups of humans organize themselves. It can be done well or done poorly. It can be done with a thought to the most vulnerable, where minorities have rights and where it's not simply mob rule.
"Politics" is how we decide whether or not to protect certain aspects of the natural world from exploitation, and how much. Or how much to help people who can't make their own way in the world for whatever reason (illness, age, whatever).
It’s crazy how much weight certain words carry. Replace politics with diplomacy and you get people cheering for it.
s/politics/money
Is it just me, or has Hacker News seen an uptick in politics-focused posts and comments recently?
I think it's actually appropriate here, and I'll try to articulate why. (Disclaimer: former history major here. I might be biased by my own interests.)
I'm reading "A Hacker's Mind" by Schneier and it makes a fundamental connection I've been trying to reason about for a long time. He looks at hacking through a very broad lens. He defines it essentially as the manipulation of a system using its rules to take actions that are allowed by the system but undermine its intent.
The key thing he says is that systems exist within and connected to broader systems. He gives the example of an ATM. Fundamentally it's a computer connected to a box of cash. You can hack it by manipulating computer rules. But it also exists within the broader monetary and legal systems, and while the computer's rules might allow you to execute the hack, the legal system will always treat that as an illegal action and prosecute you.
So what I'm basically saying is that as a matter of systems thinking, politics makes sense here on Hacker News. I think where people might object is that it can devolve into arguments about values and black-and-white thinking (arguably this essay does that, although I think the Burroughs quote about the bull in the ring approaches a systems theory aspect). Personally I enjoy thinking about this stuff though. Macro-level socioeconomic systems are the largest things we can think about aside from planetary-level concerns like geology and universe-scale stuff like cosmology. Their dynamics are very interesting and interact in many ways with the stuff we think of as more traditionally "hacking."
It's always been political. What's changing is the level and maturity of the discourse. Rarely do I see conversations where both sides are trying to be amiable and understanding. I could have rose-tinted glasses, but I strictly remember conversations here being a lot more nuanced a decade or so ago.
I see this type of post every week, every month… no it’s always been political. Tech politic — or government politic is just analyzing power structure.
Well, the political world is turning fairly rapidly now with all the moves the US administration makes. 2026 is a crazy year.
Yea, but that isn't what HN has been for. It has historically been relatively safe from political stuff. For some of us it's rather sad to see it moving in that direction.
Hackers have always been political. I've never met a true hacker who wasn't political.
I've never met a true scotsman who wears anything under his kilt.
"The disease of philosophy is its itch to express itself in the forms, 'Some S is P' or 'All S is P.'"
I hear you, and I'm sorry. As the others have already observed: Politics is everywhere, and very active politics have invaded the conceptual space HN is a facet of.
> It has historically been relatively safe from political stuff.
As a 53 year old who has been interested in technology for my entire life I'd say that in the past the technology industry has never been anywhere near as outwardly political as it is now.
When the front row of the presidential inauguration is every major tech CEO, well yeah politics are going to to come up in technical spaces.
tl;dr - The shift you are seeing isn't specific to HN.
Well... where have you been hiding, heh? How did you interpret what the GNU/FOSS people were up to?
I've been... around.
I don't entirely agree with the FSF on everything but my first internet email address.back in -1992 was gfm@gnu.ai.mit.edu
> tl;dr - The shift you are seeing isn't specific to HN.
I'd argue that the problem isn't necessarily an occasional political discussion, but that all political discussion here feels like somebody copy and pasted a few longer-ish social media comments into an HN comment tree. It's as if the moment politics is mentioned, people magically forget where they're discussing it, and before long you end up with a flood of childish insults, flaming and nonsensical accusations of conspiracy.
A gardener whose only focus are roses without any regard to the soil is an atrocious gardener.
> It means that politics is not the art of life. Politics does not sustain life or serve it. Rather politics is the organization of power, and power is the enemy of life. For the measure of power is its ability to make life what it would not be; to break, bend, control, crush, direct and destroy life.
This smells like anarchist writing to me. I never heard of this writer before, but a cursory search doesn't indicate they're an anarchist, but they are a "counter culturalist," a term I'd also never heard before but I can grok the meaning.
I guess this site thought is about "panarchy," which seems to be to be anarchy which lives in peace with other ideologies for the purpose of experimentation and full expression of humanity?
> In those notes the basic idea of Panarchy, namely “tolerance for all our tolerant experiments” is spelled out in the most convincing and rational way. Personal and social life is seen as a continuous experience in living where everyone learns from his own or other people’s actions and efforts and in doing so each person advances and develops. Without the freedom to experiment we lack the basic pre-condition for a rich and meaningful human life.
> In other words, Panarchy advocates full tolerance and freedom of experimenting in one’s life everywhere and for everyone.
https://www.panarchy.org/debellis/onpanarchy.html
I find that when I talk to people about the basic tenants of anarchy as envisioned by someone like Kropotkin, they're often surprised. They're expecting men in black balaclavas throwing molotov cocktails, and I'm telling them instead about sharing your extra food with your neighbors. There's quite a few anarchists in this tech scene, most prominent and likely known by readers here would be Moxie Marlinspike, creator of Signal.
If you vibed with the idea of the article here, namely that for some reason politicians seem to always be insane and doing mad things, you might enjoy some overviews of anarchism. Keith McHenry is local to people in SF, you may have seen the Food Not Bombs tables out and about, he rewrote the anarchist cookbook to be far more useful: https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html (skip the absolutely atrocious vegan recipes at the end. I respect the man as a thinker but my god not as a cook) or Kropotkin is probably the most readable historical anarchist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarc.... And of course David Graeber, whose frequently gets mentioned here, though his books are often quite long and academic.