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?