From my perspective, you routinely practice “the truth is offensive, mind your manners” style censorship: I don’t believe there’s any way I could have raised Democratic support of racist or sexist policies that wouldn’t have had you show up to censor that under the guise of decorum.
Genuinely.
So, please make a suggestion for a better way to discuss it, or admit you’re censoring for ideological reasons — that the truth is inherently offensive.
Again, from my perspective, the reason that comments like this generate such a strong response, including censorship from you, is because people can’t reply to them factually: my comment is factually correct, and the distress from that leads to the non-responsive comments and you censoring it to keep the peace. (The distress because of cognitive dissonance from having supported a party that acted that way.)
Censorship in support of groupthink is unhealthy.
Is it censorship to ban accounts that post that way? Sure, if you like. But it's censorship of aggressive polemic, a.k.a. flamewar—not of ideologies or views.
I'm not sure that you'll believe this, but we don't care what your ideology is or your views are, or even read the comments closely enough to know what they are. We have to look at tens of thousands of comments. No human can read this kind of thing closely all day.
If you're genuinely asking about a way to discuss these topics that wouldn't be considered ideological battle, here's what I suggest. First, review the site guidelines, take them to heart, and rigorously edit out of your comments anything that is not in their spirit. Especially: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Second, give up the idea of winning arguments or defeating enemies, and instead cultivate an attitude of good conversation between equals who respect each other, none of whom knows the whole truth. Third, be more respectful the more strongly you disagree. You can do that by editing out pejoratives and provocations, finding things you do agree on, and remaining neutral inside yourself while writing.
If you do even half of that, you'll find that moderators on HN don't show up to scold you, even though you're expressing substantively the same views as above. But don't underestimate the work it will take to get there. The enemy-smiting style is addictive and takes practice to abandon. I know because I had to do it myself.
I mean, democrats are still white, by large majorities..so they "hate themselves"?
Such simplistic analysis of something so complicated seems.. trivialization to the point of no meaning. This just appears to be trolling for effect's sake..or venting. I know HN's guidelines suggest not attributing motive..but this appears to be such a rancorous post..
Well, it seems weird, but yeah - haven't you yet encountered the spectacle of a white man who seems to be apologising for being male and white? Or at least suffering from some sort of vague, formless guilt from which he can never atone about his 'privilege'?
Seeing people who have been convinced to hate themselves because of how they were born, is a distressing and puzzling experience. I hope it doesn't become something I see too frequently.
I can’t.
Nor was I alleging what you seem to think — I was alleging that the Democrats through those alliances carried out systematically bigoted policies, not merely advocated for them. There doesn’t seem to be a modern right wing equivalent to those acts of systematic bigotry from leftists, but I suspect that leftists frequently talk about right wing bigotry as a cover for their own.
By having a popular myth of right wing racism or sexism, they provide social cover for their intentional bigotry.
However, whatever talk there might be on the right wing, the intentionally sexist or racist policies actually passed into legislation seem to be left wing.