HN is not a place for partisan or ideological battle. Commenters here need to swerve away from such flames, not straight into them.

Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political arguments. That's an abuse of this site and we eventually ban accounts that do it (regardless of the politics they espouse) so please don't do that.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13570725 and marked it off-topic.

Man this alt-right spam has been getting out of hand on HN recently. I hope dang does something about it.

Criticizing Uber's PR response right after casting "disruption" pejoratively is quite a trick. Uber? Not disrupting enough. Protestors? Way too much!

You're projecting. When you drool about people who are against fascism being "subjugated", anyone who stands up to you isn't "giving in to fear and hatred", they're showing it the door.

> When you drool

This is a violation of HN's rules regardless of how wrong someone else is. Please don't do it again.

Can you explain what "it" exactly is?

Being uncivil in general and personally abrasive in particular.

Would have saying "fantasizing" instead of "drooling" have been acceptable? Would it have been to suggest that they -- not that person in particular of course, just anyone like them -- should be "kettled and subjugated"? And you really think talking that way about large groups of people in their absence is "civil" (enough), whereas being "abrasive" to such a person is not?

When someone in the subway next to you says "gas all Jews", and you turn around to them and say "Oh no, dear friend, I agree with this plan of action for several reasons, many of which I'm sure you will agree to if you would just let me explain them to you" -- that would be too friendly. I would even argue this would be very callous and abrasive to not just Jews, but any other decent person sitting in earshot as well. I'm not saying the alternative is to call them names, but you can be too friendly in light of some things. You're essentially asking me to choose this random, callous, unintelligent person over millions of people just because this random person is "here", which is just your own personal outlook on time and space. Which is fine, just be aware that that's what you're asking.

I'm not contesting what I said was unnecessary, I know this because I spoke in anger and and shot of a quick snarky reply. I could have packaged my disgust, and my will to do battle, more smartly. I could have been funny about it, or a million other things. But generally speaking, I still think your idea of civility is basically cannibalism with a fork and a knife. Or how does that expression go, penny-wise pound-foolish, something like that. If anything, I regret that word choice because when people literally drool, it's often because of health problems or old age or other reasons that have no business being mentioned in one sentence with someone... advocating, now there's a perfectly lifeless word... people being "kettled and subjugated". But otherwise, what makes me care for a sick person, what makes me give a friendly answer to a child, what motivates me to all sorts of "civil" things is also the exact same thing that makes me irate when I hear talk like the above. It's not even the same material, it's the same element. I respect your wishes in so far as this is private property, but I'm not holding my hat saying sorry for being out of line.