One problem, which I fear you might be falling into, is that people who find themselves in a minority position tend to get frustrated and then lash out at others in ways that break the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

Then they get downvoted and flagged, quite correctly (because, by hypothesis, they're breaking the rules), and often get sucked into a positive feedback loop*, in which they get even more frustrated and start breaking the rules even worse. Eventually they decide that the entire community is against them and that they can never get a fair hearing.

This is a conundrum for moderation. I wrote a long post about it just a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41948722, but maybe it's time for another.

The conundrum is this: on the one hand, we want commenters with minority views on HN (because it's better for the mandate of the site) and we try (in our limited way) to protect them from abuse by majorities. On the other hand, we can't make it ok for them to break the rules just because they're in a minority. If they keep it up, we have to ban them the same way we would ban others who do that—it's not as if the rules can change depending on demographics, opinions, and so on.

The only approach I know of that has a chance of working is (1) to describe this dynamic to the commenter in your position, (2) acknowledge that there's a greater burden on people who are arguing for minority views, (3) acknowledge that this is unfair but also inevitable, and then (4) try to persuade them (i.e. you in this case) that it's in your interest to scrupulously follow the rules, even when other commenters aren't doing that.

There are at least two reasons why this is in your interest, even though it's hard to do under pressure, and unfair that minority commenters are under extra pressure to begin with.

The first reason is that it will make your comments more persuasive to open-minded readers. There may not be many open-minded commenters on hot/divisive topics, but commenters are a small minority of readers. The more you fall into the trap of venting at other people's wrongness, the more you're going to lose the larger, silent audience who may be persuadable. Worse, in cases when your argument happens to be correct, you're going to end up discrediting the truth that you're arguing for—which is bad for everyone.

(I've been making this argument for a good 10 years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8994691. Lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....)

The second reason is that if you scrupulously follow the rules, such as by editing out all snark, name-calling, flamebait, and so on from your comments, then if other commenters respond to you by breaking the rules, moderators are in a much different position: we can reply and ask them not to do that without getting a "but what about what they did?" finger-pointing response. Or if we do get such a response, there's a lot more we can say.

Further explanations here for anyone who wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

* (I mean positive feedback in the sense of amplifying, of course. Not that what's being amplified is good.)