> Demanding citations you don't plan to read

Yes, I often ask for a citation, and make a point to at least always scan them when provided, out of respect for someone putting in that effort on my behalf.

And often, turns out they are right and I make a point to sincerely thank them for the new information.

So yes, requesting a citation and then not reading it is extremely rude.

Flame wars aren't always launched or avoided due to the level-headedness of rhetorical delivery

I don't know which view it is you're talking about, but what @dang did isn't universally wrong. If the view is something that is as close as possible to objectively wrong, in the moral sense, as something could be, I'd say it's justified.

An example of this could be genuinely stating "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "black people deserve slavery". You know, reprehensible stuff. There's no reasonable way to have that discussion. How do you debate whether a large minority is inherently sub-human? Like, I'm sure a Neo-Nazi would be able to calmly explain their views without attacking me (a white man) personally, verbally, or physically. But their view is inherently an attack on the humanity of other people.

To be clear, I'm not saying you are actually a Neo-Nazi or a racist. They're just very, very clear-cut examples of the point I'm trying to make. Another example could be that someone stating that every LISP programmer is a child molester. There's no flamewar in the comment itself, but it's a view that can't be expressed without inciting one.

Yet another example could be thinking that every person earning more than $50k is a capitalist pig and deserve the guillotine. Again, calmly stated as a matter of fact. But it's also calling for the execution of a large part of this site's audience. It would inherently cause a flamewar too.

All of these examples are extreme, but I think the point that some views inherently having a piggybacking flamewar has been made. Where @dang decides to draw the line between controversial point with legitimate room for discussion, and views so abhorrent or nonsensical that it's easier to simply ban users perpetuating them is up to their discretion.

I also don't think @dang bans people because of a single comment, but rather someone continually pushing the view that inherently leads to flamewars.

Can you point to any HN documentation which is misleading in this regard?

So that is to say, where does HN have a discrepancy between what it "says on the box", and what's "in the box"?

Where or how can a HN visitor be led into believing that HN is a site where one can post anything whatsoever without facing a moderating mechanism, as long as the material has a calm tone without any abusive language or personal attacks?

>Edit: To clarify, I mean discussions in other sites.

"to clarify" being roughly analogous to "before y'all see what I've written and rush to hit the 'make the wrongthink gray' button before you understand what I've said".

Nobody ever got rewarded for trash-talking the platform they were talking on. It's kind of funny to see all throughout these comments people are taking great pains to exempt HN from criticism when pretty much every social media site has these problems and it's a matter of degrees.

It was because I was primarily thinking about reddit when I was posting and only after posting did I consider that someone might think I meant on this site. So I decided to immediately edit to clarify any potential confusion, as I do honestly find this place to have one of the best chances of 'good faith' discussions happening.

That isn't to say discussions here are perfect. Sometimes I do find people will stereotype or strawman my argument, but I find it happens less here than in any other site and to enough of an extent I don't find it influencing my discussions.