Does it really make any difference whether they compared the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organisations for decades

- with someone who wasn’t good at debates,

- or with someone who was?

My point still stands: even if Charlie Kirk had been entirely unremarkable, it wouldn’t be right to compare him with someone responsible for thousands of civilian deaths?

He was good enough that someone decided he needed to be shot.

Dang hadn't even begun working on HN in 2011, even as pg's co-moderator (that only happened the following year). HN, and the world, were vastly different places then. Dang has now been doing the job in some form for over a decade, and I've been around for plenty of those years too. We've learned much about what is needed to keep discussions as healthy as possible (relatively speaking). These days it's not unusual for us to post a sticky comment at the top of a thread for a major controversial topic, to remind the community of the guidelines and the expected standard of discourse. In today's world, we would post that kind of top comment for any death of a major public figure that were likely to stir up strong reactions in the comments.

[flagged]