Your examples are tips of icebergs that indicate much more problematic opinions. I’m not shocked you received pushback.
HN is a place where people don’t ask what is true with intellectual curiosity but classify opinions as “problematic” and justify bullying people based on that.
HN becomes emotionally upset if you discuss actuarial tables or quote people’s own words from their own presentations because those facts go against the narratives many on HN believe — and like many before them, people on HN believe censorship and bullying are justified by that emotional turmoil.
As you just did, impugning my character while carefully avoiding the veracity of my claims — only saying they’re “problematic”, as a good apparatchik would.
I could’ve been more precise: “opinions that are based on weak evidence that confirm a certain preimagined view of the world rather than challenge it”.
I would like to say that this is why my country turned to atheism but really it was the Sunday morning.
With all the other conflicting information floating around online, it was a breath of fresh air to come to HN and see articles describing exactly how mrna works and why it was likely not a health risk, complete with thoughtful discussion. I'm too lazy to go look up citations and reference those old posts, so you can take this as anecdotal.
Also, “problematic” is perhaps the least emotional word I could have used, and yet you still found issue with it.
I would advise you stop viewing HN as a monolith, it will help you get over your victim complex, which will in turn hopefully help you see opinions as things worth changing based on new information, rather than value for your character.