I guess the problem I pose, however, is that a number of IRL trump supporters I've spoken to actually think of it as a legitimate source of some sort of thought

I guess the problem I pose, however, is that a number of IRL trump supporters I've spoken to actually think of it as a legitimate source of some sort of thought. This makes it a very dangerous line to walk to moderate out inclusion of thoughts that _are in fact influencing people_ and thus as opposition _we should really be aware of_ (the overarching questions of "who draws that line"/what is acceptable at any given point in time/exposure to distasteful ideals/slippery slope towards echo chambers). I see why the people who would argue not even alluding to the firsthand datasource would take that stance, but I would hope that a combination of critical thinking and community-guided discourse would allow exposure to distasteful ideas without having them "leak" or be shut down entirely. Simply, flagging to deletion sits way too hard on one side of that continuum for my tastes. I would hope HN could remove the personal attacks and accusations but while still allowing for an informed discussion on the root cause and dogma; what surprised me in this chain was that the non-flagged top level response to OP was more of what you say in terms of personal attacks/accusations than the OP was, which is what motivated me to speak up.