I suspect that HN's rationale is far less the basis of a worldview than that citing a (mainstream, contemporary) religious foundation is a red flag to the HN commentaritat's bull, and will shift the discussion from the site's prime aims of "intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation":
Dang's post cites politics, which though worthy of (some) discussion also tends the same way.
Mind too that the result need not be intentional, it's just how a public-discussion site, even a comparatively well-mannered and well-behaved one such as HN, works.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404>
Dang's post cites politics, which though worthy of (some) discussion also tends the same way.
Mind too that the result need not be intentional, it's just how a public-discussion site, even a comparatively well-mannered and well-behaved one such as HN, works.