It certainly does inspire thoughtfulness, in fact, I think this is one of the most interesting philosophical posts in a long time. He doesn't attack DHH with insults, but discusses frameworks of thought and how legitimate differences in opinion can be looked at by recognizing differences in the recognition of facts between parties, and the context in which certain courses of action are advocated. Example: the "sorrow of war" piece in the article.

It may not be HN's core purpose, but the essay is well constructed.

Edit:

This article resonates with me so much. It puts into better words how I feel about political conflict in the US. I talk a lot about "good faith" discussions. It's the reason I try to hold back the instinct of hating/resenting the people in my political opposition. I think (a) reasonable people can have differences in opinion, and (b) many people in the country are factually incorrect about the things happening in our country.

My relative straight-up rejected the notion that the president's family has benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in corrupt crypto investments including those from foreign governments, or that their family is self-admittedly engaging in rampant insider trading. Not "well it's not that bad". Not merely "the other side does it too". He denied the fact.

My anger is directed most toward the politicians and the media that knowingly propagate the lies and the intentionally misleading trains of thought to lead people into far-right ideology. They operate in bad faith. Even if some things that the right wants to do in the country have an iota of legitimacy, they do not operate with the context of decency and good meaning.