What you're actually doing is creating the kind of discourse you claim to be deriding.
Examples:
- People with red hats on are my friends
- People that like chocolate ice cream are idiots
- People who let their children play football are Trump voters
It's true that a HackerNews thread has a lower global-political impact than, say, a presidential tweet or a Supreme Court ruling. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from thinking through their HN comments. Words matter.
The comment we're both responding to [1] was unnecessarily divisive -- which partially obscured the commenter's otherwise good points (that team-thinking can obscure rational thinking). And that's particularly important on a website like HackerNews.
Original divisive comment: "[Has football joined the list of] values that separate members of the Red Tribe from the Blue Tribe? Football is a red-state pastime." [1]
The comment you responded to: "You're creating [divisive] discourse [by posing divisive questions]." [2]
I think your response, pointing out that a comment on HN usually won't "create" a nationally divisive discourse [3], is missing the point. If you look at the rest of the thread you can see that it created a divisive debate within HackerNews. I think the point you're missing is that divisive language creates divisions wherever it is used and it's worthwhile to point that out -- even if you think you're only talking to yourself.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14867048
(It's extra-funny because all right-thinking people know that it's obviously better to have it hang over the front of the roll. Sheesh!)
But maybe you're making the subtle point that "it matters if HN comments abuse quotation marks."