One HN phenomenon that is genuinely puzzling is illustrated in this thread, where a view is expressed in a non-inflammatory way and is moderated into near-invis

One HN phenomenon that is genuinely puzzling is illustrated in this thread, where a view is expressed in a non-inflammatory way and is moderated into near-invisibility because of it's unpopularity. OK fine ... but then there's a non-insignificant amount of responses, indicating genuine engagement with OP's position. Now you have to squint to read the greyed-out post if you're interested in what the discussion is about, and likewise with your response, which is again well-expressed if not popular. IMO, moderation should exist to keep discussions within HN guidelines, which these posts clearly follow. Instead it's plainly "I don't agree with you so I'm going to try to vote your view out of existence", which doesn't even work as folks still engage/respond. Is there any way out of this? HN is famously the best-behaved discussion site on the internet, but this seems to be an unfortunate tendency that happens fairly often.