zlacker

This is what I don't understand. I'm now being threatened with being banned while adamsea is getting a slap on the wrist. If you're only allowed to discuss one side of this topic without getting kicked off HN, why even allow the threads in the first place?

I was responding to the question:

> Could you elaborate on the form of the attacks on white people and men you're seeing in SV companies?

What could I have done to answer that without posting some evidence?

>>malvos+(OP)
I answered you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062, which should clarify most of this.

I can see why, before reading that, you might think this was a double standard, but it isn't. The reason is that adamsea hasn't been using HN primarily for political battle (though I grant you his account history is close to that, and a different moderator might have called it differently). The key word here is 'primarily', which is the test we use, as explained in that comment I just linked to. I didn't reply to you on the basis of one isolated comment but rather on your use of HN overall, which is what we care about.

It's false, of course, that you're "only allowed to discuss one side of this topic without getting kicked off HN". If that were true, we wouldn't have flamewars, and boy do we have flamewars.

>>dang+w4
Got it. I used to post on other stuff but dropped off and admittedly came back to discuss what I feel are attacks on our industry and my personal career story.

If I commented more on “regular” posts, would I still be able to chime in here? It’s important to me that this point of view gets representation. I try to keep it very civil and can continue to refine that.

>>malvos+U11
Right, the idea is to be here to gratify intellectual curiosity. People who use HN that way and occasionally comment on a political topic as one of many things they're interested in, tend not to have so toxic an effect on the site. I think it's partly a question of the spirit one is in the habit of adopting here.