HN takes a stand against a number of practices, including ideological battle, despite the fact that this often creates a de facto status quo bias. See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>.
That includes as well snarky or curmudgeonly comments, namecalling (e.g., "mental illness"), and sneering ("Simple" might be read that way). Absent those two elements your comment would have been far stronger. Additional substantive points would also help.
A key issue of course is that problems which are addressed, in part or in whole, by mass organisation or movements, tend to rely heavily on rhetorical rather than dialectical speech. By nature this tends not to reflect intellectual curiosity.
This doesn't mean you cannot criticise posts or comments, or challenge the status quo. But you should be intelligent in how you do so. Yes, that takes more work and is tiresome itself. It may be effective, however, and tends to keep the mods off your back. And it may help you refine your arguments (and rhetoric) for taking the fight elsewhere. In that regard, HN can be a useful training / testing ground.
The establishment / status quo rhetoric nearly always gets a pass. That is IMO quite wrong and a major bone of contention with HN's moderation policies, though I understand why they exist and note that they work well in many other areas.
FWIW, the same admonishments also apply against brain-dead endorsement of the status quo (e.g., tired thought-stopping cliches, whataboutism, JAQing off, Gish gallops, etc.), and comments which do this are rightfully downvoted or flagged.
Oh, and you might find this thread of interest: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48371592>.
If you want nuance, the obvious answer to this is that the rules that apply at our level do not apply to them. Raising money is an inevitability and does not require any fundamental basis other than the name behind it.