Because the underpinning theories are bullshit and been abandoned for almost 20 years in serious sociological circles. I gave more arguments lower in the comments.

Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution is false? Those are outside the echo chamber.

How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut case propaganda.

>Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution is false?

Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori.

>How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut case propaganda.

Where is this consideration though? And where are the counter arguments? I only see a quick labelling?

> Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori.

You're right it doesn't. But my criteria for an interesting and worthwhile article isn't one about crazy ideas that have been beaten to death 1000s of times already. If HN front page had tons of those types of stories, no one would come here!

This is maybe an unfortunate approach if someone opens a restaurant called "Dog Shit".

You'd be surprised.

Many good restaurants have unfortunate names. And many very bad restaurants have pleasant names.

Even when it comes to "dog shit" it pays to do one's research...