I honestly appreciate your recommendation, it encouraged me to look past a clickbait title. It was a poor example but dang charitably understood me and I don't regret asking.

I don't think it's necessary to be this combative, and I think it's responses like these that encourage people to never admit any wrong on the internet. HN typically _tries_ to be above this.

I didn't try to suppress any articles, but I do encourage you to suppress your anger, because, it's probably not worth it :)

Your hypocrisy angered me, in particular because it puts you on the side of the problem: dysfunctional discourse in politics, anti-intellectualism, suppression and silencing based on a whim, etc.

I was firm but not out of hate. I was hoping that you'd take it as a lesson learned whether you would publicly admit to that or not. It's admirable that you did. We all make mistakes and we're not static creatures.

This conversation is progress.

Further, I'm dutch and from the 80s. This would actually be my most well-behaved mild tone on a good day. A special adaptation for HN.

Thanks. I really am not advocating for silencing but this site is meant to be a relatively curated list, there are plenty of places to go to view political/ideological content. It's not silencing to suggest that something might not belong here.

Since I may have you emotionally captive here, I'm really curious:

What is your strategy for separating interesting wheat from flamebait chaff? I try to do my "due diligence" but it is exhausting and frequently frustrating to follow what appears to be clickbait and see where it lands. But I'm a'merican zoomer so maybe that's, just, not my vibe, or whatever.