"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow them when posting here.
I've asserted that the OP is preaching what is essentially religious ideology, and that he or she is engaging in virtue signaling. I think it's a very uncharitable interpretation of what I've written to label it as "name calling".
I have responded to the strongest possible interpretation of OP's comment, a reasonable summary of which is: "We are all laboring under biases, conscious or unconscious, which have directly caused a certain demographic constitution in our community". Again it's very uncharitable to suggest that this is a straw man.
In my view, OP is advertising very bad ideas that deserve to be challenged passionately. Am I not allowed to do so here on HN?
Swipey phrases like "preaching of a religious person" count as name-calling in HN's sense.
Your comment was clearly written in the flamewar style. ("Your virtue signaling is unimpressive. Please take it elsewhere.") That's very much what we're trying to avoid here, so please don't do it on HN.
We must correct our "biases, conscious or not"? What evidence do you have that all of us are laboring under the weight of some kind of original sin of "bias"?
Can any one of us investigate these claims scientifically, or must we appeal to an authority in your belief system to get answers?
Your virtue signaling is unimpressive. Please take it elsewhere. What RMS is doing here is clearly a step in the right direction.