Your initial comment here was unsupported by real world examples, and used a lot of rage-bait buzzwords.

When asked to put up a concrete example, no-one called you a fascist/nazi/transphobe in the example. They banned you for, according to you, "just asking questions" on a country specific coronavirus subreddit.

Your tone comes off as "I'm right, they're wrong. I'm the victim here!"

" saying at the time we didn't yet know how many doses and on what schedule of the vaccine would be needed."

"I messaged the mods to explain that I was triple-vaxxed "

So we can infer from this post that this happened sometime after Aug 2021. So someone went into the Canada Coronavirus group, a group where posts seem to get tens of comments, and brought up completely innocently, "how we don't know how many doses" we need. To make a broader point on what... could it have been, "how we shouldn't have a mandate?"

Perhaps this was closer to Feb/2022 where the Trucker protest was raging across Canada. Of course, the mods may not want a big flamewar over mandates in their group that seems like a niche information aggregation sub.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", as it were.

I consider the playing of the accusation of the JAQ wildcard (an immediate victory in the minds of some subsets of observers) to be a much more dangerous (often literally unrealizeable) cultural norm, it is a go to staple technique in any delusional internet rhetorician's toolkit.

It is a well known tactic for ill intent. For a reason. People do it all the time and should be called out for doing so.

It's quite obvious when someone asks you questions with ill intent.

You believe the example was asked in bad faith? I heavily doubt it, it is a pure insinuation. I believe you are just walrussing here.

edit: Never mind, "walrussing" allegedly does exist. But I believe the criticism still can be understood.

Just because you can’t does not make it impossible.

> You believe the example was asked in bad faith?

When, exactly, did I claim that? Show me the exact quote because it doesn’t exist.

Making up things other said is a very obvious way to tell if someone is coming with bad intent.

Intuition yields belief, but beliefs and knowledge are not the same even though they are typically indistinguishable to the one who holds them.

This was the content of my comment, which got me banned from /r/CanadaCoronavirus.

I answered yes. As someone who has built communities online and in the real world, you are someone that, at best, needs careful management. I wouldn’t willingly include you in a team or community. I’ve done life or death stuff with the teams I built, I’m pretty good at this.

From reading through here plenty of other people think similarly. You are more willing to argue than you are to hear that your behavior is problematic. Even after asking specifically, and being told so.

You are exceptionally talented at this. You have literally dozens of people bickering. Congrats.

Unambiguously, I consider you toxic.

Someone who has a strong opinion and defends it?

Someone whose basis for their strong opinion you’ve deemed woefully insufficient?

Someone who doesn’t change their strong opinion when presented with a dozen comments against it and a similar number for it?

That the commenters are divided on my opinion isn’t toxic: it demonstrates it’s an issue with Reddit that’s affected at least half of us and left us annoyed, ashamed, or slighted.

If my behavior is problematic, then why is it only problematic on Reddit? On HN, when someone disagrees with me they don’t reach for any -ist words to describe me: they disagree with the comment on its own merits.

What does “problematic” even mean, other than that it’s bad and I should feel bad?

We are not building medical devices here. I’m not interviewing to be on your team in a work environment.

This is an example of the kind of topic that is interesting to discuss casually on HN with other hackers.

And the benefit of HN, unlike Reddit, is that disagreeing with someone doesn’t also turn them into a cartoon villain who must be vanquished. People here are allowed to be wrong without also being -ists or assholes.

Here’s what I was originally responding to.

> Does it seem to you like the kind of person you’re interacting with is reasonable here but unreasonable to the point of group toxicity elsewhere? Or that I'm unreasonable here?

This isn’t an ad hominem attack. He asked for a judgment on his personal behavior.

What exactly would they accomplish if not banned, and were allowed to continue to "ask questions"?

Why should anyone be afraid of them achieving that accomplishment?

"Do people have ideas, or do ideas have people?"

Carl Jung