Even in tech companies, you silence opposing opinions about how a technology should work and you potentially ruin the company. I've seen this in startups many times - the problems that we read about after a startup has failed were raised early on by certain members, often who were ignored, fired, and ridiculed for having such opinions.
You were banned for posting things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17491521 and ignoring our requests to stop. Any fair-minded reader can see that comments like "who brainwashed you bro" violate the site guidelines independently of your political views.
And since you brought it up - in a manor so truncated - that post of mine that got me banned was 90% about how biological gender does exist. This emphasizes my point about how narrow the range of acceptable opinions are here on HN. None of the words composing the portion that you've quoted are even mean or offensive - and yes, I was implying that propaganda must be used to make someone argue so confidently without evidence against what even establishment biologists overwhelmingly believe (that biological gender exists). And furthermore, since you bring it up, another post of mine on a similarly "political" topic was met with with this supportive reply: "Speaking as a gay minority, I totally agree with your comment."
So within the code of conduct, I assume you are referring to, "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I started off sarcastically, but you ignore the rest of my post which is substantive. The comment I replied to began with the words, "race does not exist." If you search on scholar.google.com for the terms 'race' and 'biological' you get 2,640,000 results. And is it really so radical that I met a comment dismissive of the discussion within 2,640,000 peer-reviewed search results with sarcasm?
But admins decided to cherry pick support or lack thereof for my comments, and then censored me. I don't know if this will be seen either since I am shadow banned - and the commenter who alerted me to the fact that I was shadow banned was then banned as well (for making that comment). After being banned I Googled for other people banned from HN from posting outside of the acceptable range of opinions and I found a load of them - and I don't think HN audience would appreciate that you're deciding to follow this censorship tread that we're seeing on YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and many more. HN is framed as a more open community, but my experience here reveals a safe-space of increasing proportions.
It's not uncommon for people who were banned to fancy themselves a political dissident and go on about how repressed they are. But the truth is less glamorous: moderation is janitorial work, and the stakes are trivially low.
I'm confident that the HN community supports how we sweep the barn, because if they didn't, we'd never hear the end of it. And what we see is just the opposite: the community flags comments like these ones, from all political quarters. Even your comment upthread was flagged after I unkilled it, so I had to unkill it again.
How can you simultaneously blame New York, Massachusetts and California for housing prices when they all have different housing strategies? You're clearly just pushing an anti-liberal message with no substance.
Not wanting lots of government management of something is only anti-liberal because modern "liberals" in the US have hitched their horse to the big government wagon.
Parts of California, like the SF Bay Area, have more restrictive zoning laws. This is not true of the state as a whole, and generally the restrictiveness of zoning laws is highly correlated with the per capita household income of an area, not with its political leanings. (In LA, for example, the most restrictive zoning laws are found in Palos Verdes, the most conservative part of the city but also one of its wealthiest. Commercial buildings are generally limited to 2 stories in the few areas where they even allow commercial development. Contrast that to Beverly Hills, an equally wealthy neighborhood that leans significantly leftward that allows for significant commercial and mixed-use developments. )
That's an inevitable result of population density.
the Republican governors in California's history
Granted SF is space constrained, but there is no excuse for other parts of Cali to be so expensive.
Basically, without data comparing several possible relevant variables along with the actual statistical correlation the factor represents, these types of discussions are IMHO useless.
Paris has a population density 3 times that of SF. Manhattan has 4 times.
I associate the housing crisis not really with liberal hypocrites but rather with ineffectual old ways of being “green”. Tons of Boomer environmentalists think you can save the planet by recycling, driving a Prius, and not wearing furs. That’s why the hot issue in Berkeley is plastic straws when they are undergoing a severe housing shortage. The fact is that installing a family in an existing dense, walkable city is the greenest thing that can be done. Being a NIMBY and having your Prius serviced by a mechanic who commutes three hours each way from Turlock is not green at all.
Yes some people are that violent. However such people are everywhere. You are more likely to find them in the blue states just because the population density is higher.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-11
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-12
Note that the tables seem to differentiate between
The state with the most hate crimes was California, at 931. California's population is 40 million. Next up is New York, at 595 incidents over 20 million citizens. Pretty close per person to California. (.000023 vs .000029, someone check my math).
Next up... Ohio, 442 incidents to 10 million citizens. .000044. Michigan, 399 to 10 million. Kentucky, oh Kentucky, 206 to 4.4 million.
"In March, the Tulsa headquarters of Oklahomans for Equality was the victim of a similar incident. Security camera video caught a white truck drive by and fire more than a dozen times at the center early in the morning on March 6."
LGBT persons are not a protected class at the federal level: look at a map of states that include it as a protected class, and nearly all the states that don't include it are red. http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws
As a gay man from Idaho I’d love it if you could chill out with the hyperbole.
Likewise, expensive blue states like MA and CA have plenty of places to find affordable housing, they just don't happen to be in the middle of Boston or San Francisco.
[1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/06/21/25-US-Cities-Worst-...
Unlike Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas, we have these things called "earthquakes" that can cause significant amounts of damage and death and our building codes are more rigorous to minimize those risks. This also makes it more expensive to build housing--but that's a good thing. You don't want a ton of people living in shoddy houses that will collapse and kill them.
(Just to keep up with US population growth Los Angeles County needs to build over 30k homes every year.)
While a few notable buildings opened up in downtown during that 2013-2016 time period (i.e., 8th and Grand, One Santa Fe in the Arts District, the Whole Foods Lofts, the Last Italian Fortress), most of the units in downtown have only recently come onto the market, i.e., in 2017 and 2018.
Some of the biggest developments in the Arts District and South Park are still under construction, and the biggest developments only broke ground this summer.
https://la.curbed.com/2017/4/13/15288974/la-metro-housing-co...
LA has no single center of gravity. We have high rises in Downtown, along Wilshire in Korea Town, in MidCity/Beverly Center, Beverly Hills, Century City, Culver City. LA has hundreds of multi-unit apartment and mixed use buildings. Between downtown and the beach, most of the area is zoned for multi-unit residential with multi-unit buildings scattered between single-family blocks. Only a few neighborhoods are entirely single-family homes.
(Edit: I should have said "nobody" instead of "no one"; sorry.)
By your measurement nobody wants to live in California because everyone wants to live in New Jersey.
Policy needs work, I agree. My conservative friends like to mock me, blame the Democrats, or just the entire concept of liberalism, for every problem in San Francisco. Maybe they're right, but I've heard strong arguments that many problems we face are hangovers from old-guard republican policy:
http://www.sfweekly.com/news/the-great-eliminator-how-ronald...
I've also heard arguments that a lot of this boils down to just Prop 13, sponsored mostly by Republicans, particularly anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis but also Paul Gann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Jarvis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gann
Anyway, I think finger pointing is boring and useless, and as someone who's social circle is split in third between the deep south, the not so deep south, and the capital of liberalism in America, I've learned to address these kinds of discussions with "point your finger at what you think the solution should be instead." Saying "blue states suck at building cities" is just another form of Ad Hominem - what specifically is the problem, and what specifically do you think the solution should be?
That may be true for your friends, but the revealed preference of SF residents as a whole does not agree.
My point being that money, in one way or another, caused the housing crisis, and it may not have anything to do with liberal vs conservative, zoning, regulations, or prop 13. SF is an iconic city, and money will always flow there. Meanwhile, virtually everyone I knew in SF was a renter, and most of them were in tech. The only ones I knew who owned had pre-IPO Google money or made it to Google Staff positions.