Even if you had a point, you just lost it. Because when you present a point in this way with this kind of language and in this kind of behavior, you just lose everything.
I'm a pretty skeptical person (see my skepticism on my last comment, for example!) who views most actions by most companies very skeptically and tries to see if there might be ulterior motives. And I've gotta say, you're wrong in this instance.
> As to your claim that you aren't soft on Libertarians.
They're not (they're not soft/hard based on ideological beliefs). For example, DanielBMarkham, perhaps the most outspoken libertarian on this site, is rankbanned. Now, I do have serious doubts about whether or not they're "soft" on folks saying negative things about YC companies/people.
Lastly, I've gotten to know etherael quite well -- he's got a sharp tongue, but he never quite struck me as an asshole. I do know that he's very talented at what he does, and almost always provides good, intelligent conversation about anything I bring up to him - and in that way, fits right at home here on HN. I guess though maybe you caught him in a bad time being especially rude? The best of us lose it sometimes. I hope etherael is more thoughtful in his future replies.
I think there's a lot of outspoken libertarian/anti-statist types around here, and that's fine, but I don't think it's even the plurality among political stances of HN readers. I suspect being invested in politics to the point that you'll regularly engage in political discussions online is very strongly correlated with holding atypical political views (I include myself in that set).
although maybe it is a ponzi scheme for the miners now that I think about it.
Basically I have no idea what you're talking about.
I didn't deny that
> and even there I try to avoid doing so.
I just said that, like for example right now.
Thanks for confirming that you're an asshole who is happy to subject thousands of people to valueless bullshit because you require the last word.
If dang had balls, you'd be banned for that shit. But he lacks balls when it comes to idiots like you, Dan.
The fact that you aren't banned is 100% proof tat dang is a completely gutless and worthless moderator.
1) you ban people who are rude and who you disagree with philosophically, while you do NOT ban the equally rude people who you agree with.
For evidence of the above, look at users like etherael (and his other names; not sure if he tors/vpns or if you can find them), who are raging assholes on a semi-routine basis, but who aren't banned because Libertarian BitCoin Lover matches your values. And let's face facts, you're less willing to ban people who agree with you, even if they're toxic assholes.
If you banned people who you agreed with for the same exact crimes as those you disagree with HN would be a better place.
As it stands, people who agree with you are allowed to be ruder and more toxic than people who disagree with you. This is used as a game by some of HN's worst users who brag on IRC about how it's fun to try to engage in flamewars where they don't get banned but the other individual does.
edit:
Not to mention other game that's played by a lot of folks, which is to be as big of a dick as is possible without actually using openly aggressive language. The goal there being to generate an emotional reaction while retaining some semblance of plausible deniability, because everybody knows that you won't ban them for "polite" taunting, even if it's toxic shit that can't go anywhere useful or interesting.