What I find worrisome about this piece: 1. it at no point mentions what the fellow is actually alleged to have said. I'm sure I could find out with a few click

What I find worrisome about this piece: 1. it at no point mentions what the fellow is actually alleged to have said. I'm sure I could find out with a few clicks, but what's up with that? 2. This is mostly an anxiety-rant about an entire political movement-of-movements that, for the most part, has nothing to do with the specifics of this anecdotal case. How is this front-page HN material? Sample size?? Connection with something other than ~feelings~ to leftist tendencies more generally? Like, IDK, this does not seem up to our normal burden-of-proof standards. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think we are showing our bias, allowing mediocre content that we like here....for ~reasons~.... to bubble up without due scrutiny. Wisdom-of-crowds requires a wise crowd. I doubt ours here.