Whether or not the person behind that post is personally bigoted, their post is a valuable contribution to the conversation that was happening* because it represents, with relatively solid reasoning and in uncommon depth, a viewpoint that was otherwise absent. A viewpoint that is absolutely relevant to the wider public conversation on the subject, and one that, even/especially if one happens to be on the other side of the issue, it is very valuable to understand.
It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News.
I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here.
More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo.
-----
* I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.
It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News.
I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here.
More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo.
-----
* I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.