Animats' comment was provocative but within the range of substantive conversation. It contained specific information and wasn't purely ideological.

This comment, on the other hand, is just trolling. You can't comment like that here, and since this is a throwaway account, I'm banning it. Please don't make throwaway accounts to break the site rules with.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11950484 and marked it off-topic.

Are you sure? Isn't notawacist critiquing the notion that the way to reduce particular types of crime is to eliminate from the local population a subset of society whose label is correlated with that crime? In fact it is animats whose post contained words that would usually be considered unacceptable in mainstream American discourse:

> No more black people, and no more gunfire.

notawacist goes on to point out that there are crimes of which white people are the predominant perpetrators.

Note also that notawacist's reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11950969 to the inflammatory sentence ostensibly identifies notawacist as holding a standard anti-racism pro-diversity position:

> I have no idea why black people or other minorities might feel like they are unwelcome around the hackers of Hacker News when they post comments like that.

Of course I'm not sure; certainty isn't possible with so little information.

The information I do have suggests that Animats was most likely commenting in good faith and that you are most likely trolling. Please don't do that here.

I am not "trolling" -- what in my comment makes you disinclined to take it at face value? Thanks for in general doing a good job moderating but, with respect, I would like to point out that I find your comment here patronizing and disrespectful.

I do not believe the sentence "No more black people, and no more gunfire." indicated removing certain types of people was a solution. Just that a company invested money in an area and now there is less blacks and less gun fire. That can be a pure statement of fact.

I didn't say it did mean that. I said it "would usually be considered unacceptable in mainstream American discourse", which I am sure you agree with.

HN silences people/comments with show dead, I set show_dead=true and observe them because I am human and not without bias and I strive to be open to opinion or vocal/internet (perceived) conflict.

But when you are trying to maintain an image for certain reasons, it's easy to sweep things under the rug… but that only last for so long for there is only so much rug… and considering most mainstream general discourse is more vapid banal bullshit it's not surprising to see how that might effect most viewers/admins apart of crafting such when they make the decisions they do.