I did not referred to that comment.
> and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".
The comment you're trying to misrepresent was "Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid.", and afterwards, once the downvotes started to flow, was edited with "Edit: yall actually support monarchies? cringe asf lmao"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769043
Why do you feel that opposing the concept of a monarchy should be censored in a discussion on a topic which naturally involves replacing a monarch?
But I don’t see Dang censoring a robust, thoughtful discussion of abolishing the monarchy here. He shut down a cheap, childish comment that was followed by an even cheaper, vulgar dismissal of people who don’t already agree with the original “comment”.
Name-calling and other kinds of fulmination don't express much information.
Concisely: this argument is unconvincing.
> Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting.
But how do you know it is "fake nuance" rather than genuine explanation? By being uncharitable?
Because they were crap comments. They'd have been crap comments if they were pro-monarchy, too. One of them was a one-liner "fuck the monarchy I don't care" comment, and the other, not much longer, ended in "cringe asf lmao".