Right. From the essay: "But it is dishonest of the anti-immigration people to claim that companies like Google and Facebook are driven by the same motives". "Dishonest", "anti-immigration people", if that's how the "principle of charity" starts off, where do we go from there?

> if that's how the "principle of charity" starts off, where do we go from there?

Assuming your premise is correct, it's easy to see where the principle of charity would have us go from there: by responding to the strongest interpretation of what that sentence might mean. Its substantive point is clearly something about how companies like Facebook and Google have different interests than H1B body shops do.

The principle of charity is inapplicable to an article which begins with a "So, have you stopped beating your wife" type of assertion -- as written, it excludes the possibility that a reasonable disagreeing position could exist, since only "anti-immigrant" and "dishonest" people would hold disagreeing positions.

Thus, it is undeserving of charity and undeserving of HN. Do the moderator's duty and get it out of here.

Let's assume you're right. The principle of charity is then doubly applicable: it would prevent the needle from getting stuck in that low-quality groove.

Charity has limits.

When you're using terms which are very heavily politically and emotionally loaded to label people who disagree with you, you're going to get that sort of response back.

You can't be deliberately uncharitable to people and then say, "But you should be charitable when you respond!"

"Charity" as in the Principle of Charity has a specialized meaning. It isn't about being nice (though we should do that too). It's about keeping discussions substantive. Since that is the raison d'etre of Hacker News threads, I do indeed think we can expect HN commenters to be charitable in this sense.

And for the most part substantive posts get substantive comments.

This just isn't a substantive post. It's full of loaded language, highly questionable assertions, and doubtful anecdotes.

(1) You objected to the term "anti-immigration". If that phrase could be changed to something else that roughly means "oppose immigration" what phrase would you have used?

(2) If a phrase that you suggest is used, would this allow you to focus on the substance of the argument?

It is a classic high school, debate or lunchroom, tactic to make it impossible to argue against a statement. An under-handed debate trick that draws your cognitive response away from debunking the more important points. Chaff.