> That has nothing to do with the GP comment being religious flamebait and therefore against the site guidelines, which it obviously was. Sure, I get that the

> That has nothing to do with the GP comment being religious flamebait and therefore against the site guidelines, which it obviously was. Sure, I get that the comment was based partially in religious hatred and "flamebait". However, at the core of most of those types of comments are a kernel of truth. And if anything, PG has written about understanding those essential pieces of truth... even if they are uncomfortable. And, converting a flamebait comment with a kernel of truth to an actual intellectual conversation should be the height of what HN ascribes to. > I understand the internet forum instinct to look for specialized nefarious secret reasons when a standard moderation decision gets made, but really. Wow. What you're ascribing a conspiracy theory to is what I would call "bias". And normal news orgs put a bias like (eg: "XYZ company is our sponsor"). I'm not invoking some super secret cabal, as your "nefarious secret reasons" would have it. And I would ask that you follow the guidelines, primarily pertaining to "dont be snarky". I know I have a penchant to doing that sometimes, but I try not to. " Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. "