Title: I ask this (as truly an open question, without knowing the answer) because of 2 recent posts on HN that got flagged, one a thought-provoking article by a Yale student titled &quot;Abolish Yale&quot;, and the other about the California proposal to use the recently-novel &quot;citizen deputization&quot; legal techniques pioneered by Texas, but this time to restrict assault weapons.<p>The reason I ask this is because there appear to be a growing collection of topics that <i>are</i> interesting and deserving of debate, but because they are hot-button issues they often devolve into flame wars. I&#x27;ve been on the other side of this as well, where I commented that I flagged a DEI-focused article because, while I thought the topic itself was interesting, it seems comment threads on DEI topics <i>always</i> devolve into uninteresting flame wars, and that I rarely learn something new from these threads.<p>I didn&#x27;t feel that about the 2 topics today that got flagged - indeed, there were a bunch of comments that let me to going down Wikipedia rabbit holes and I learned a ton, and for both of these topics the first I heard about them was on HN.<p>So my question to the HN community is whether you think there is some way (e.g. feature changes, &quot;sub topics&quot;, etc.) to host these topics that seem fundamentally relevant to the HN audience, but which are so difficult to have debate about without getting flooded by low quality comments?
Upvote: