https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: the sentence I was reacting to was "You do not have a good understanding of King's work." Since it has been edited out now, I'm going to mark this subthread off topic and collapse it.
Would a "This is a commonly held misconception about King" be more appropriate?
"So I guess you must think they didn't suffer?"
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I often read technical conversations on HN in which one user tells another they don't have an accurate understanding of some topic. Just because it's a historical or cultural matter doesn't mean it's ad hominem to state plainly and dispassionately that someone lacks understanding.
There's no need to comment pejoratively on the other person. The post is stronger without it, and the expected value of such swipes, in terms of the impact they have on subsequent discussion, is sharply negative.
Moderation appears highly selective. E.g.,
"This argument is clownish and we should be embarrassed it's on the front page."[1]
That is the top comment for that post, but I don't notice your reminder there about pejorative comments.
If I had to rankly speculate, I'd say moderation happens consistently on topics where the average HN user tends to have a low level of knowledge (unionization, civil rights history), and less consistently for topics where there is a greater probability of a critical mass of participants with domain expertise (digital security).
I also rankly speculate that you don't state this outright to prevent the tinder fire that would result from making users aware of their own lack of knowledge on the topics more likely to be moderated.
The truth is far more boring than your speculation, which I suppose is a consistent problem with speculation. We moderate guideline breakage when we see it. Moderation is inconsistent because we don't see everything (as pvg already pointed out). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
There's also some selection involved, but it's more along the lines of "do I have the energy to make a post about this one", "am I prepared to deal with howls of protest in this case", and "is it borderline enough to just let go".
You could always flag and/or email the moderators if you think something needs a further look, though.
Discuss what is wrong with what they are saying. You don't need to make inferences about what personal failings might be leading them to make an incorrect statement.
I'm struggling to parse that first sentence in a way that someone would be offended by.
The original poster may well see that as talking about them and reply in the usual flamebait way -- possibly with an extra dig for failing to engage them or trying to hide it. That's the risk you take when arguing on the Internet.
But if everybody really is interested in discussion rather than arguing, it sets up a reply more along the lines of trying to merge X and Y, or even changing their minds, or other constructive behavior. It starts with making it about the issues and a clear understanding of how different viewpoints lead to different conclusions based on the same facts -- all of the facts, not just the ones that support your arguments and diminish theirs.
> You don't understand blah, here's a quote!
is quickly followed by
> No, YOU don't understand blah, here's my quote!
It's not offensive, but it's a subtle bit of rhetorical judo to rile somebody up. And in a political thread that's probably going to get locked in 10 minutes anyway because it's got other flame wars going on.