How, exactly, does such an approach raise the level of discourse here in ways the original article doesn't?
What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt that he's a member of the opposition? Do you doubt that all of his claims are vague to the point of meaninglessness?
It is throwing some fetid meat on the table and saying "make a meal". There is zero possibility of it leading to valid conversation. It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense.
Not a single person here has brought up Stephen Harper, except you. It sounds like you're itching for a fight.
The point of the "op-ed" (which is, by definition, an opinion piece) is to raise awareness that our public representatives have issues with the legislation, and hopefully move the debate into the public sphere. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Now, whether this deserves to have made it onto the front page of HN, that's debatable.
That is, after all, precisely what unsubstantiated means.
Which is why I commented at all, being tired of commentary that simultaneously complains about either the low quality of current comments, or the impossibility of high quality comments --- while at the same time providing negative value itself.
Your approach is a variant of the tired formula "The post is [stupid/terrible/useless/...]. I am obviously [more knowledgeable/smarter than you/right/...]. Anyone who would disagree is clearly [an idiot/partisan/lazy/...], and I fully expect to see them come out in droves now".
This risible style does far more to lower the tone than any linked article I've ever seen here.
My "approach" is to call out a bullshit, partisan, zero content article. If you don't like it, well bully for you. And FWIW, I succeeded in short circuiting some bullshit, taking many well worth it downvotes in the process (from imbeciles who are growing in ranks), angry idiots desperate that they can't ply their partisan bickery.
You stated that the article lacked solid critiques, but failed to address even one of the critiques presented and show it's lack of solidity. You further claimed that "instead weighs to emotion" but provided no evidence of it.
Stating such things as if they are self evident from the text is posturing, not argument. This sort of blather serves no useful purpose in discourse, and is rightly despised as a favored tool of the demagogue.
I'm well beyond diminishing returns here, so I'm done with this.
Yuk, within minutes on some long forgotten post -- downvoted. Either you have some pathetic, psychotic users who literally follow me around, or you yourself put some comical downvote bot on me. Sad stuff. HN continues its descent to complete irrelevance.
Oh no, it's the clever slowban. So tricky.