Two things. First, the article doesn't "challenge" Zach's views in any comprehensible way. It simply spews vitriol as if the author (who is also the publisher) was paid by the ad hominem.
Second, the views Zach espouses have more weight than simply Zach's endorsement. It isn't as if he's the only one who feels this way.
Putting those two things together, I don't think it's fair to use words that imply that Zach is rejecting the author solely because the author's views undermine Zach's personal and unique viewpoint, introducing cognitive dissonance.
You or I may disagree with him, but I think Zach's argument is more akin to putting up a sign that defines "nicely" the same way Hacker News defines its guidelines, namely a set of heuristics for discourse that have been found through experience to lead to productive discussion.
Of course, Zach (or anyone) isn't alone in his views.
You're wrong here, though:
> Putting those two things together, I don't think it's fair to use words that imply that Zach is rejecting the author solely because the author's views undermine Zach's personal and unique viewpoint, introducing cognitive dissonance.
If a man wants to ban openly gay displays of affection, it's because he wants to play king. The fact that others share his sentiment is irrelevant.
Clearly, Zach isn't alone in his bullying views or attitudes, but it doesn't matter. If anything, it makes it worse.
Second, the views Zach espouses have more weight than simply Zach's endorsement. It isn't as if he's the only one who feels this way.
Putting those two things together, I don't think it's fair to use words that imply that Zach is rejecting the author solely because the author's views undermine Zach's personal and unique viewpoint, introducing cognitive dissonance.
You or I may disagree with him, but I think Zach's argument is more akin to putting up a sign that defines "nicely" the same way Hacker News defines its guidelines, namely a set of heuristics for discourse that have been found through experience to lead to productive discussion.