That's funny, but it's not quite accurate. There's a difference between a) saying that certain viewpoints don't belong here, and b) saying that comments which say that certain viewpoints don't belong here don't belong here.

It's like there are three positions:

1. Certain viewpoints or comments should not be allowed. 2. Everything should be allowed except comments which say that certain things shouldn't be allowed (i.e. tolerant of everything except intolerance). 3. Everything should be allowed.

#1 is intolerant, #2 is an attempt at enforced tolerance (which is necessarily intolerant in itself), and #3 is actual tolerance.

It seems to me that the real problem is that meta discussions are frowned upon on HN, but there is no designated place to have them instead. So whenever someone starts one, they face the risk of censure-by-downvote.