I don't view it as a community and every time a topic goes outside that space (e.g. society, culture, economics etc) I'm frequently horrified by some of the comments I see here.
I have some sympathy for the cost to mods. But people having strong opinions about what other people are allowed to share is anti my interest and imo a mockery of hacker spirit.
I personally regard hackers who are intersectional, who see the relationships of things broadly & see how aspects of the world reflect in each other as great. But some people are obsessed with limiting and filtering, and I cannot understand what they are going for.
Paul Graham’s essay "How to Disagree" remains essential reading for anyone engaging in online discourse . It provides a clear framework for constructive debate, and I agree that posts falling into the lowest forms of disagreement (ad hominem attacks or name calling) deserve to be flagged.
Yet, I share your concern, sometimes a post isn’t inherently bad, but attracts low quality replies. Flagging the entire thread in such cases feels disproportionate like amputating a limb just because there’s an itch you can’t scratch. It risks silencing potentially valuable discussion due to the behavior of a few.
I empathize with the moderators. Their job is thankless and difficult, and I appreciate that the warnings we see aren’t automated bots but messages from real humans trying their best. We all have limits and that’s ok.