I don't believe HN's current moderation policies/leadership make this the place to have that conversation though. Participate in good faith all you want, you'll still earn a ban/warning for "arguing" if you piss off the right people.
I hope you didn't take my comment is advocating for that. I can't really comment on a thread I didn't see.
>They probably would have been flagged, but the threads were just so deep you wouldn’t see that unless you’re intently following the thread.
Sounds like pointless name calling. That said, my original point that HN is not a good place to have these discussions stands. Unfortunately this community is for sterilized technical discussion, anything with spice or flavor isn't permitted.
Sorry, I must have missed the not, I thought you were saying this is a good place.
How so? You can't say what you mean here, you're forced by moderation to be dishonest and sterilize everything. Nuance is only rewarded if you're nuanced about the right side.
>is respectful of other points of view.
Again, this is not in any way consistently applied. If you disagree with the majority here no amount of nuance will save you from ban/rate limit.
And that message, "You're replying too fast, slow down". Lol. What duplicity.
For argument's sake let's assume it's 80/20, with 10% on each side of a topic very passionate for their side. By banning and/or rate-limiting the 10% you dislike in any issue you can sway the 80% to follow the other side thus "manufacturing" the consensus.
How would you scientific-revolution social media?