And for the record, Ruqqus was shut down [1], so it really doesn't even exist.
Seems that way. Parent explicitly wrote that it's only the articles that say "they've gone too far this time" that they find at fault. This means articles with the opposite view ("yay, more of those diversity efforts"), that touch on the same subject (and thus one would assume to be equaly divisive), are ok. I'd find it impartial and ok if they didn't wish either kind on HN, but only targeting one side is icky.
But even this framing (of articles like TFA as being anti-diversity) is wrong, if not disingenuous, to begin with.
As if TFA author is a seggregationist or wants less diversity (so agreeing makes you like that too), when diversity is not what the author complains about, but rather the inverse: lamenting the litany of the same facile rage-bait identity articles to the detriment of substantial reporting.
Actual reporting which would include substantial reporting on matters of opressed identity and lack of diversity, as opposed to e.g. gaslighting readers that Dave Chappele's special was met with uniform hostility when it was a huge success, or letting huge social issues be ignored, while covering inconsequential complains...
My greater point is that communities that facilitate these types of conversations typically have less inviting, more hostile cultures. There's a spectrum of course, but you can see glimmers of the type of discourse found on sites like Gab in the comment sections of anti-diversity blogs on HN. I think that an HN which plays host to more discussions about perceived issues with diversity will alienate a lot of folks who aren't entrenched in those sorts of debates and self-select for the type of discourse associated with these so-called "covens of witches." It seems to me that there's no value in sliding down that side of the spectrum for a site that's largely meant not to play host to ideological battles.
Except maybe the founding story of the US—I’m not an expert—but that was literally several waves of “witches” (many of them profoundly illiberal) taking their ball and going elsewhere, and their genetic memory of the necessity of free discourse seems to have died out by the middle of the 20th century (and was arguably missing the point as to which discourse needs to be free for decades before that). Not a bad record overall, but we’ve run out of unsettled land to go elsewhere to.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...