Who said anything about cancel culture or culture wars? The original post was just posting out a bias that many people have (anti-crypto). Everyone has biases and a lot of people are somewhat aware of their bias. By pointing out the bias, it helps people keep their bias in mind.
Your original comment said it was not effective and serves against you. Now you're saying it produces a narrow "shallow" advantage. I think it effective as it forces the reader to confront their biases.
I've seen this used in nonsensical anti-FB rants. You acknowledge that many people think facebook bad and you're not disputing that. And then you can go on to say "yes, people in fact still use facebook. in fact billions use it every day". It's been very effective in my experience.
Presuming we agree with the post I was replying to, this "shallow advantage" is only relevant if the outcome we want is upvotes and shallow engagement. Sometimes, that's exactly right, for example if we're promoting a new crypto coin, maybe it is beneficial to begin a post with "Crypto-Luddites will hate this, but WhyseeCoin..."
However, what I am also saying above is that there's another motivation for a post in a forum like HN, which is good-faith debate amongst people with open minds. I stand by my assertion that such openings detract from the post when we're seeking good-faith exploration of ideas.
Your original comment said it was not effective and serves against you. Now you're saying it produces a narrow "shallow" advantage. I think it effective as it forces the reader to confront their biases.
I've seen this used in nonsensical anti-FB rants. You acknowledge that many people think facebook bad and you're not disputing that. And then you can go on to say "yes, people in fact still use facebook. in fact billions use it every day". It's been very effective in my experience.