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.
I'm not sure what do make of the rest of your comment. I'd need to see specific links.
If history is any guide, I will be the one at blame. But compare the words written there against the HN guidelines - who is behaving inappropriately? If one disagrees, or dares ask a question, and people lose their tempers because you're challenging their orthodoxy, who is at fault?
If you were to take a careful read through the words written in that entire thread and ones like it, you might notice a recurring pattern of people knowing things that they have no way of knowing. Knowing what people have done in secret. Knowing what people are thinking. Knowing what people's motives for actions are. Knowing what people really mean, even though their words say something else.
If you're tired of ideological flame wars, consider whether people making things up might have something to do with it.
As for the comment you linked to, it seems like a neutral statement of what the commenter thinks. Maybe they're mistaken, but I don't see how that was a flamewar comment.