Hacker News doesn't seem to be having any of it, either. I got voted to 3rd top post then hit with a barrage of downvotes after Phil Welch's comment. Asking under Crocker's Rules, could I have phrased my comments more... sensitively? The goal of a rationalist is to win, and it is useless to engage reason and data when this meets affective heuristics and turns off the audience.

It is hard to argue with shallow declarations of 'distastefulness' I'm afraid. And being more 'sensitive' isn't necessarily the wise approach. Phil Welch's move is an act of aggression. It's an attack at a perceived vulnerability because he thinks he can get away with being completely illogical just because of the context. The best you could do is preempt it with not more sensitivity but by expanding your reasoning such that your position is framed as the moral high ground before he gets his chance to take a shot. Don't be nice to immoral moralizers!