> so you are attempting to prove your point
They're sharing their opinion; no proofs to be found anywhere, nor evidences.
> Trying to repress discussion is the opposite of soberly analyzing divisive topics
In your opinion, right? Because under mathematical logic, the opposite of "repressing discussion" is "encouraging discussion", nothing less, nothing more.
Suppose there's a divisive topic that is posted on a forum with mostly common or at least topic-unaligned appeal. Stands to reason then that most discussion on that topic will be of low quality, since again, the community on the forum is not well-aligned to debate on the matter, right? That is the reasoning behind their opinion I'd imagine, and I can definitely agree with this personally.
And while inevitably there would be a minority of people who are well equipped to engage the topic productively, even if they post and their posts gain traction, the discussions around them will be nevertheless low quality - I think this prediction is agreeable as well at least.
Note also that nowhere in this model is the intent of the participants represented anywhere. So even though your intent is commendable:
> would encourage you to dig in and practice curiosity and open discussion
... it nevertheless misses the point. You're also (supposedly) asking for topically better aligned minds to put themselves through the torture of engaging those (supposedly) overwhelmingly not, both in the sense that they're (supposedly) super not capable, and in the sense that (supposedly) there are a lot more of them in here than not.
This is further supported how for example in this thread you exercised what I refer to as mind reading in both of the comments I've seen from you.
Example #[1]:
> and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it
They said that they flagged it because it's:
> too junky
... not because they're trying to repress discussion of it. Naturally, I do recognize that the post getting flagged would prevent further discussion of it, but it is both dishonest to say that they did it with that goal in mind (their goal is in their mind, which you cannot read) and also just completely untrue (in my opinion).
Example #[2]:
> so you are attempting to prove your point
In this scenario you're telling them what they're doing, which is again something only they can know. You only really know what you think they're doing, but that is not what you're saying. Consider the following alternative:
> so I think that goes directly against your point.
Note the "I think" part.
These are both very standout signs (for me at least) that quality discourse, especially on divisive topics, would not be possible with you. I further think that this is true for many other people as well, in most of the threads here. I highly question if it is possible to do with me as well, particularly in specific topics, and with consistency. I'd go as far as to say that with random people, on the internet, it is essentially impossible to have productive discussion on divisive matters, if it is even a possibility at all, ever.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42996747
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42996763