issues of intrinsic identity--race, gender, sexuality, etc.--are contentious, not because of those characteristics themselves, but because of the perceived threat to the status of marginally-statused individuals in otherwise higher status groups. that's what implicit bias is, a subconscious vigilance against rising threats principally based on outwardly observable characteristics[0]. it's applied insecurity. people comfortable in their status don't bother to shout down and suppress others.
this is small-p politics. pointing out hypocrisy hurts. it creates cognitive dissonance, it backlashes. but nothing changes without that. pain is literally our built-in evolutionary change agent.
and the challenge-suppression dynamic is playing out right here. you're part of it, responding to maintain the status quo while pointing out a tiny opening far away and in the future, a nonthreatening mirage of a glimmer[1]. other responders feel so marginal and threatened that they've decided to screech back, in defense of their own tenuous position, lest it decline further. this is literally trying to put people in their place (exhibit A: @bsanr's flagged/dead parent comment).
all this from a little comment pointing out commonplace racial hypocrisy. what power that is!
by the way, @dang explicitly declined to intervene for the kobe memorial posts at the time.
merry christmas!
[0]: those outward characteristics are uncritically internalized to represent a nebulously combined physical, ideological and cultural threat (an antiquated evolutionary feature that aided survival millions of years ago but not so much today). this shortcut also serves to lessen cognitive load and the suppressive resistance required.
[1]: i'd delve into the dynamics of why hn won't change just given 'time and measured effort', but this post is too long already.