Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple.

What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.

And you're attacking someone simply for stating that they think "Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do." From left field, you're bringing up and arguing against "having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others". And declaring that you know what EduardoBautista "wants": "no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom from speech." How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement, and then bring up your contrived ideas in a seemingly vitriolic attack against another person, I don't know.

Perhaps people wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "bigotry", but I would: based on a single statement, you jump to conclusions and attack someone based on those conclusions. I think such behavior is one of the biggest problems in (a part of) American culture, and I would wager I'm not alone in thinking this.

> How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement

Because that one statement is from Stormfront.

Simply for the sake of meaningful discourse, I'd like to believe there's more to this thought. But you offer little.

1. Is there proof you have of this? Or is your statement just one of "This is something I think /they/ would say."?

2. More importantly: If a statement comes from the mouth of someone you feel is unsavory, does that make the statement invalid? Is everyone who then utters that statement unsavory, and so on? Do you think you can come to that conclusion? Particularly with EduardoBautista's thought: do you think you could come to that conclusion?

Attempting to associate EduardoBautista with Stormfront (with a comment like yours) would be considered a damning accusation to many, though such tactics have become painfully commonplace. That is not what you intend, is it?

I'm saying that the sentiment expressed (vacuous complaints about "wrongthink" when the "wrongthink" in question is complaints about people choosing not to associate with fascists) originates from Stormfront and their ideological brothers-in-arms. Whether he's an actual white supremacist or someone who got suckered into repeating their propaganda is immaterial.

Definitely not alone, thanks for writing that.

No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry?

Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and her letter, and the extreme criticism she faced from HN members? Do you think the attitude you commented with will help bridge a political divide? Because your words are exactly why I think it's laughable to expect tech employees to do anything about polarization other than make it much worse.

You've been using HN primarily for political battle and crossing frequently into incivility. Those things are abuses of the site, irrespective of your politics.

Since we've asked you repeatedly not to do these things and you ignored us, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.

> Look at what happened when Obama won.

"Elections have consequences." "I won. Deal with it." "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Politicizing the IRS.

Should I pretend that Yvette Felarca [1] is a beacon of liberal thought in the same way you're doing with that nobody you linked in the Mic article? Do you assume that most Trump voters would condone that guy's behavior? Like, seriously?

GOP is the strongest it's been from a local to national level since the 1920's. The internal conflict they're going through with the Freedom Caucus is something Trump voters anticipated, never Trump Republicans were a thing. Democratic leadership seems unsure whether to follow the more vocal portion of their base further to the left, or refocus on the more centrist Democrats who went Obama in '08 and '12 but voted Trump in '16. Obstructionist moves in Washington are something the left isn't traditionally fond of [2]. That's why the left should reach out. Do whatever you want, you clearly don't seem to mind the politicization.

1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/berkeley-teacher...

2. https://newrepublic.com/article/141751/democrats-will-lose-w...

> espousing terrible views

Except your typical Trump supporter avatar is being distilled into a handful of beliefs, even though many may have other reasons for supporting.

Most of America seems to have forgotten that single issue voters exist on both sides.

At the same time, in order to support Trump, you have to feel that xenophobia, sexual assault, bigotry, and mocking of the disabled are perfectly acceptable in a world leader. So they're not entirely innocent.

In practice "little tolerance for bigotry" means you might get fired for supporting a viewpoint held by the majority of Californians.