OK sorry I didn't mean to be argumentative or have condescending tone. I honestly thought that my initial reaction to the article would be the same as 95% of people who read it, especially ones who go on hacker news.

I didn't see your original point either. My view of my relatives (aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews) and how well I get along with them isn't affected by the thought of how likely they are related to me in terms of blood (I don't think this is something the majority of people ever think about), but more about frequency of visits, proximity, and how close I am to the mother/father.

> My view of my relatives (aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews) and how well I get along with them isn't affected by the thought of how likely they are related to me in terms of blood (I don't think this is something the majority of people ever think about)

Yes the argument isn't about consciously thinking of the possibility that your father isn't your biological father. It's about how that possibility has affected human culture and biology through biological and cultural evolution. Of course this line of thought is not meant for ones who think like 'love is magical and comes from God' or whatever. Not that I'm saying that you think that. Also it doesn't mean that I support some more extreme vile things that people rationalize with similar arguments. Anyway, that's why in my original comment I was saying that the article was troll-sounding. It's because they didn't even mention the existence of these other obvious ideas, not even to say how they are wrong, if they think they are wrong.

Thank you for your service.

Probably I don't believe what you think I believe. It's also why I was calling the original article as 'bait'. For anyone who doesn't understand it, these kind of evolutionary psychology arguments are sometimes used as dog whistles for supporting racist beliefs but I'm not trying to use it that way.

For example the one saying "thank you for your service" might think I'm doing a dog whistle and they are answering with another dog whistle thinking I support them when they make comments like

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766066 "Why does the lead photo prominently feature a “racism is a sin” sign and the article immediately mentions PoC victims in Oakland? Isn’t the vast majority of PoC victimhood in Oakland intraracial? Not many Klansmen walking around Oakland. Annoying race baiting from NPR."

but I don't support those kind of comments.

Well what I was referring to there was that you were persisting in an argument with someone who clearly was not going to understand what you are saying, despite your position being perfectly sensible and well reasoned. I think it’s nice when people do this, because even if the person they are arguing with is not helped by it, people lurking may still gain a better understanding of the topic of discussion. Persisting in the argument seems intellectually altruistic, like some kind of internet volunteer work.

I don’t really care what you support, though it is a bit odd that you would dig through someone’s comment history based on a one line post which I don’t think actually had anything to do with your perceived potential dog whistle. While we’re on the topic though, I’m curious what it is about the comment you quoted that you don’t support?