I realize that replying to this interesting comment will somehow cross a line that moderators have in place for the level of participation in a thread. However I'll take the risk because I think you bring up an interesting point. Edit: My account was throttled just now so hitting submit on this post was blocked. Be careful criticizing anything about the mods :)

Suppose two people have differing beliefs, call them A and -A. One person might explain why A, the other might explain why -A. The arguments (in the logical sense, not the conflict sense) can be very well reasoned and informative. In the end maybe both will believe A or both will believe -A.

The problem you cite seems to occur when the arguments include ad hominem attacks or generalizations about "everyone who believes -A".

Some of these types of generalizations occur because the people involved believe the generalization to be true. Of these, some are due to prejudice, others are due to lack of actual data, others are due to lack of thoughtful analysis and reasoning.

Making such generalizations is not typically a helpful way to engage in the discussion of A or -A, but I'd argue that they are sometimes used a shorthand for broader sentiments. In other words, they are as likely to be due to sloppy articulation as they are to signal deeper beliefs, identity or emotional state.

It takes practice to be able to discuss politics. It (frankly) takes practice to be able to discuss politics with smart people who don't necessarily fit the mold of the typical identity-driven partisan.

Just as HN should be patient with someone who argues that PHP is a superior language for systems programming, we should be patient with someone who holds ill-founded beliefs on political issues. Having the remark down-voted to oblivion, or making a snarky reply will only cause the poster to recoil and feel defensive about the belief. But writing up a detailed response that respectfully addresses the problems with the analysis and sheds light on important themes is one of the most respectful things one human can do for another.

Strangely, HN mods have zeroed in on the most surface level aspect of identity-correlated discussions and have failed to articulate a principled ethos for moderation decisions. Most egregiously, they have failed to lead by example and offer respectful contributions to important, politically and emotionally charged issues our society has been dealing with over the past few years.

One day anthropologists will study HN for evidence on how we ended up in a heavily authoritarian society that had no respect for enlightenment values. I suspect it will be fairly obvious what kind of chilling effect HN moderators had.

HN is one of the few places where smart people congregate, and HN mods prefer a world in which such people simply report to work for some silicon valley firm and do not take responsibility as citizens for their beliefs. HN moderation is anti-citizenship and anti-rationality. While it can be broadly characterized as a response to the rise of Trump (it didn't really get bad until after the election in the midst of the Russia story), it has gone way beyond what could be considered a reasonable and temporary response.