Honest question dang:
I assume this would also apply to political flamewars?
When a flame war arises when someone asking for clarification regarding a (typically pejorative) claim, is guilt or innocence based on relative epistemological truth, or popularity of the idea? As long as one's words are ideologically consistent with the majority opinion, it seems like the HN guidelines have little bearing on acceptability of comments. But go against the grain in the slightest, even asking how someone knows of what they claim to be true, and it seems it won't be long before a warning is received. Completely misrepresent what someone has said, to the degree of pure fantasy? Perfectly fine. "Do not read minds" would be a positive addition to the guidelines imho.
This particular exchange may not be the best example, but on certain topics it seems like anything short of full agreement is no longer tolerated around here. Arguing in bad faith is one thing, not being allowed to disagree is something else entirely.