Considering this is HN, I'd call the atmosphere in this thread excessively negative, snarky, and unhelpful, and yes, rabid, relatively speaking. That being partially aided by people like you who called out a perfectly innocent comment as a troll.
the parent comment, who is 'rabidly attacking' the group in the article who are 'challenging the status quo when it comes to sociological issues'
The group in the article are doing no such thing. My reading of the current societal status quo is that being discriminatory acceptable as long as you are a member of a protected class doing it for altruistic reasons.
You and the reference comment are engaging in dog-whistle politics, where you make 'innocent' comments that you are well-aware is a coded call to like-minded people to band together. Characterising the comments as 'innocent' is a hallmark of such things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
And seriously, how can a comment like the parent, who is explicitly aware of the expected response, be classified as 'perfectly innocent'?
You and the reference comment are engaging in dog-whistle politics
Aaaand now you've stooped to insults. We're done here, and so is the thread.
Out of curiosity, why do you not consider your accusing me of 'rabidly attacking' the seed comment as being an insult?
You have a very, very low bar for 'rabidly attack'.
Actually, taking you on face value, it's curious that you didn't make the same criticism to the parent comment, who is 'rabidly attacking' the group in the article who are 'challenging the status quo when it comes to sociological issues'.
Why on earth do you play off "think before you down vote" as a negative?!
Oh, please. It was 'playing the innocent'. Pandering to such trolls keeps the debate at a very low level. The troll worked, too - look at all the responses.