What is "the line" for normal vs PRSI discussion?

[Supermacguy]

I had posted a comment on an article about self driving cars and the public's lack of trust in them. https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...s-despite-race-to-perfect-technology.2002299/

My comment was deleted saying "it should be in PRSI". The comment was like this:
People who give up liberty for safety deserve neither - Ben Franklin, when asked about self driving cars.

I posted this because I thought it sounded relevant to the "safety" of self driving cars, and the "liberty" of driving oneself. Adding the part after B.F. name made it humorous, to me, or at least seemed relevant or satirical.

I don't understand how this post is considered PRSI. It has "political words" like "liberty" in it, it's made by what most people think is a semi-political historical figure. But, IMO, it's not "political" per se, it's a quote about freedoms, or lack thereof, that could be relevant to autonomous machines. I can see how some people may take _slight_ irritation. But not that it would start a firestorm or anything.

I could have said "*I* think ppl who buy self driving cars deserve neither liberty nor safety", and would that be considered PRSI?

So is there some kind of guidance on what mods think "political" is, or politically incendiary? If there is an article about so-and-so iPhone thing, could I say "Obama uses an iPhone"? Is that too political, even if it were factually true and relevant to the article?

 

[cube]

It is a post about society, so it belongs in PRSI.

I even post economics threads here, because it is where they belong, even if the forum name still lacks the word.

 

[OllyW]

It was deleted along with a number of other posts because an off-topic PRSI discussion had derailed the thread. In isolation your post may have gone unnoticed but the thread needed to be bought back under control as quickly as possible so anything even slightly hinting towards PRSI was removed.