Are you debating my interpretation of the HN guidelines or the HN guidelines themselves? It seems a bit like you are shifting the goalpost here. I was clarifyi

Are you debating my interpretation of the HN guidelines or the HN guidelines themselves? It seems a bit like you are shifting the goalpost here. I was clarifying how the decision to flag this submission can be explained by the HN guidelines. I agree with your statement in principle, but it's irrelevant to my point or yours about this submission being on-topic. I regularly discuss these kinds topics in groups with people that have diverse viewpoints, but also can maintain civil dialog. The problem is that anonymous people on the internet usually can't discuss these topics and stay civil without devolving into echo chambers. I assume this is why HN made a decision to call them out of scope. Personally I think it was a good decision and it's part of what makes HN unique and valuable. It's a kind of sanctuary. If you want to discuss these topics there are lots of other places to go.