> If you tend to voice ideas that the majority of the group believes are not constructive, then you do not get to participate in deciding what comments are constructive to the group.
That is not the same thing as the group being sexist/racist/any-other-ist. It can lead to the same outcome of the majority of the group thinks various-ist comments are constructive (or, more specifically, if the majority of the group is unwilling to flag various-ist comments as unconstructive). However, the underlying cause is not the same. It's the difference between a person being racist and a person not taking a stand to help prevent others from feeling the effects of racism.
That being said, discussing and/or complaining about another vote being downvoted is, I believe, also against the rules, so I'll take my punishment quietly.
This is an ideal to be approached though, not one which is always reached. I can say with virtual certainty that there is overlap between opinions this group disagrees with and opinions it labels as not constructive to the conversation.
I can't say that I live up to that standard. But, I do vouch probably 10x more than I flag. Browsing with showdead on, I get to see an interesting view of HN, and there are some bits of gold in the sluice there.
It is. Or at least, it's an example of how karma point systems like those on HN and Reddit reward groupthink. If you say something the majority of people agree with they'll give you points, and then you can use those points to upvote other people with the same opinions. If enough people holding the power to give karma are sexist, they'll reward sexist behaviour, and the site will become sexist.
In any case, this post has already been flagged so I guess the community won't be having that discussion, yet again. Until next time...