The biggest issue I see in the examples the author showed is the fact that ad-hominem attacks against the author were upvoted furiously. The "indirect venting" by pwn0cakes did seem indirect to me at first, because my frame of reference was the same as yours seems to be (that of a fellow HNer).
But now put yourself in the author's shoes. Then suddenly you can see how direct the comment really was, calling you a "fucking asshole". Not exactly the height of discourse here on HN. Calling names is a far cry from writing a one-sided article. It was only inflammatory in that he disagreed with most people, and said people are horribly sensitive about this topic.
As mentioned in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1400882, where I'll continue replying, such comments were "upvoted furiously" because people agreed with it despite its caustic wording. Could that be because the original article provoked such a response? I believe so. Plenty of food for thought.
such comments were "upvoted furiously" because people agreed with it despite its caustic wording
I'm well aware that people upvoted it because they agreed with the sentiment. I was trying to say that this is not a good thing, and that the name-calling (not just "caustic wording" mind you, name-calling is a different beast) should have stopped any upvoting in spite of any agreement. I'm sure many on HN would disagree, since people mostly voted those comments up.
But now put yourself in the author's shoes. Then suddenly you can see how direct the comment really was, calling you a "fucking asshole". Not exactly the height of discourse here on HN. Calling names is a far cry from writing a one-sided article. It was only inflammatory in that he disagreed with most people, and said people are horribly sensitive about this topic.