[animuchan]

This thread reads as an example of anything BUT plurality of opinion -- most of the people here never in their lives considered that the country in question has political discourse at all, and what's going on in there politically, so no opinion was ever present.

Furthermore, consider that the opinion-like discourse is clearly performative. We all know what the correct virtue signaling looks like, and we know that we need to ruin every person not doing the correct virtue signaling.

So it's less of a plurality-of-opinion situation, and more of a direct-democracy situation: a lynch mob.

(Not saying it's good or bad btw -- not my circus, not my monkeys. Just dishonest to say we love some sort of plurality while doing this I think.)

[kfreds]

To be fair there are also many examples in this thread of courteous, empathetic and intellectual discourse, where people agree to disagree.

Relatively speaking HN is an oasis compared to other platforms. Which makes me wonder, are there forums with an even higher quality than HN?

[ranger_danger]

That's an interesting idea, and not one I have seen implemented yet.

I think the biggest hurdle for something like that would be selecting and keeping enough like-minded moderators to enforce the quality.

[owebmaster]

Depends on what you call quality. Not sure if eloquent people defending repugnant politics and views = high quality

[throwaway85825]

Largely offline and informal.