[dylangs1030]

Brudgers comment is at top because community thought it was worthy. Brudgers comment garnered 120 posts, meaning it sparked interest and posters contributed to that discussion. This is the underlying message of HN. Discussing.

What you say here is true. But it also lacks context - Hacker News is not intended to be a pure democracy. Combative discussion fostered by an incendiary comment shouldn't be acceptable just because it features factually accurate content upvoted en masse by the community.

If that were the case, Hacker News would not have guidelines or moderators. You could allow Hacker News to operate like a pure free-market economy, excusing this as long as it's democratically supported - but that is detrimental to the community's purpose in the long term. Online communities require involved government because the participants (demonstrably) cannot govern themselves when in a group. At worst, discussion devolves to chaos; at best, it becomes inefficient and bothersome. Like anything else, there are pros and cons to combative discussion, and the negatives outweigh the positives.

Examples like the Touch ID discussion and the Nest alarm discussion are particularly informative in this regard, because combative, rehashed meta-discussion took up an entire page in each instance.