In this regard, the subreddit r/NeutralPolitics is interesting: it aims at evidence-based discussions on political issues. Threads are somehow in-between HN and Wikipedia. It is definitely interesting to read, and at the same time, participating in a discussion is quite daunting.

▲

no-name-here 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with the recommendation.

Link: https://reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics

And its sister sub NeutralNews for news article discussion (same rules): https://reddit.com/r/NeutralNews

Both subs allow users to submit new posts and comments (but spend 2 minutes checking out the rules first).

▲

esperent 3 days ago | parent [-]

Had a browse around and these look good, although very US focused (standard for Reddit though).

However, on every thread I checked, about 70% of comments are deleted. That means that the noise is still there, but the mods are having to work nonstop to fight it and no doubt introducing their own bias as they do so.

I wish them luck and I'll keep checking these places out but I can't help but feel that by the time you're deleting 70% of all comments (and who knows what percentage of threads), you're fighting a losing battle.

	▲	Omniusaspirer 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You won’t find much quality in lay discussion boards, but magazines like The Economist and Foreign Affairs are worth a subscription. I’ve cut back my internet time and incorporated these into my routine, would strongly recommend if you want actual knowledgeable opinions on world affairs.
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

arnoooooo 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The idea that there's such a thing as neutral politics is highly problematic.

Evidence and science is one thing. What you should do with it is another entirely. Every decision is a tradeoff. Science can't tell you what to value.