There are many reasons to be unhappy with these threads and how the topic lands on HN generally. I am by no means happy—I just don't think that the alternative is better. Curiosity ultimately has to do with relating to what's real and true. You can't impose a narrow view of on- and off-topcicness on that.
Trying to keep HN true to those values is subject to a thousand constraints, some obvious, many not. That means the problem can never be solved—not to everyone's satisfaction, nor even to anyone's satisfaction. Therefore we all have a certain amount of dissatisfaction to tolerate.
Have you seen any comments on this submission that demonstrate intellectual curiosity? It's just flamewarring and complaints as far as I can see, at this point.
I agree that the wrong call was made. I'm also curious why this particular post is the one which was chosen as the poster child on which to set aside the rules and allow "thoughtful" discussion.
I don't agree that it isn't relevant to HN. The central value of this site is intellectual curiosity, construed broadly (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you try to define that in a way that detaches from larger human concerns, you make it smaller. Curiosity doesn't benefit from that.
There are many reasons to be unhappy with these threads and how the topic lands on HN generally. I am by no means happy—I just don't think that the alternative is better. Curiosity ultimately has to do with relating to what's real and true. You can't impose a narrow view of on- and off-topcicness on that.
Trying to keep HN true to those values is subject to a thousand constraints, some obvious, many not. That means the problem can never be solved—not to everyone's satisfaction, nor even to anyone's satisfaction. Therefore we all have a certain amount of dissatisfaction to tolerate.