Nobody feels that. It's plain why the comment was singled out, and it has nothing to do with its point of view, other than the contempt that it had for the community it was posted on.

I’ll happily read an HN debate on the monarchy all day long.

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”.

I'm not against republicanism. Your example, 'Great time to abolish the monarchy. Monarchies are fucking stupid', is not an interesting or well though-out comment. If that's all the effort this commenter felt like giving to this forum, then it should be down-voted.

They aren't very interesting but they tend not to start flamewars and shittifying the place or needing moderation.

A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments? Bias wrapped in fake nuance is obvious and time-wasting. "Fucking stupid" is an apt description of monarchism in this day and age.

Concision means expressing a lot of information in few tokens.

Name-calling and other kinds of fulmination don't express much information.

> A lot of us here are coders and we appreciate concise code. Why not, then, concise arguments?

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?

It's low effort.

dude if it was about javascript being 'cringe asf lmao' it'd get downvoted straight down to hades.