This isn't specific to Sam, you're doing exactly what he is complaining about. Stop criticising the person and try to criticise the post instead.

He's the central character of the post. Literally the entire idea here is filtered through events as they happened to him and how he interprets those events.

Why? Is the idea that Sam is morally corrupt too dangerous, too heretical to be voiced? Should we not debate ideas?

I find this sort of too-clever reflexive argument constructing impossible to take seriously. I propose a new fallacy: Argumentum ad Gödel.

I'm pretty serious with this argument, though. The entire point of the post here is that no idea is too odious to be considered unworthy of polite debate. Life extension? Sure! Gay people are evil? Sure! (For some reason, and against all evidence, we hope nobody will be convinced of that.) Eugenics is great? Sure! People of a certain race are genetically inferior and unworthy of human rights? Sure! Those who are apostate from my religion should be killed? Sure! This article advocates for literally no bounds on what should be considered an idea worthy of protection, because who knows when a "wacky" idea might be secretly good. I don't believe I'm exaggerating one bit from what the article says. (I might be exaggerating from what the author means, but only because we're supposed to self-censor some of those ideas, and the article is unclear on which ones remain worthy of self-censorship.)

So why are we treating "This person is morally bankrupt" as the sort of argument that is unworthy of polite debate? What fundamentally makes it a worse idea than any of the above?

I think there's an incompleteness problem here, yes - but I think that problem genuinely applies to the original argument. I'm just pointing it out. (And the gist of The Abolition of Man, which I mentioned in another comment, is essentially an incompleteness argument against the idea that you can have an ethical society evaluate its own ethics without a base moral code.)

If you feel that you can no longer participate in HN at all because you advanced this opinion about Sam, then you might have a point. Sam's post was written in the context of people being fired from corporate jobs or feeling forced to move out of San Francisco.

FWIW, (I'm the person you initially replied to), I appreciated your point and upvoted. I just don't have a good response.

"Argumentum ad Gödel" ... How would you prove it's a fallacy?

(If you take Gödel seriously, then you can't take Gödel seriously, in which case he's correct and you must take Gödel seriously, &c.)

Why is this comment collapsed by default? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that, even on heavily downvoted/flag-dead comments.

Because it turns out it is too dangerous to be voiced, I guess? It confused me too—it's currently at +4, hasn't been negative (as far as I've seen), and hasn't been flagged. The HN mods have also not emailed me out of band to tell me to cut it out or to say anything else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The point is that it's not everywhere, it's very much specific to the Bay area. The claim is that the Bay was a lot more open to controversial ideas in the past, and it's closing down as of today to only leave room for local ideological orthodoxy. Many of those ideas aren't controversial in most other parts of the world.

The point, I'm assuming, is that Sam doesn't want to pack up his stuff and leave, he wants the Bay to become more open.

The right control experiment here would be to do more business in other areas.

Open a YC branch in another city. Sam and other partners can spend more time there and find out if it really is more conducive to new ideas.

If the other location(s) really does turn out to be more conducive, ramp it up and close down the Bay Area operation.

Maybe the Bay loses out, but other places and the wider world win.

The point is it's not everywhere he goes, just everywhere he goes in the Bay Area.