HN user
The user is quite clearly lying, and reposting the same lie multiple times:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28803751
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28809332
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28809352
And that single comment you linked to is from 9 months ago.
Why did you flag my comment?
ignoring our request to stop
What request are you talking about?
This sounds like you're strawmanning the GP.
GP said it's not a common statement, not that they haven't encountered it before.
ISIS was founded in 1999.
The Iraq War began in 2003.
Bush's administration ended in 2009.
ISIS gained power in 2014, 5 years into Obama's administration.
Treating a man who claims they're a woman as a man isn't denying their existence.
companies discriminate against black people
They actively discriminate for black people.
there is police discrimination against black people in the US, not just in one or two regions, but in every sizeable city in the US
Source? Did you control for crime rates? Violent crime rates? Armed encounters?
You need to take your blinders off and get some reading glasses.
What is the scope of our mission?
Coinbase’s mission is to create an open financial system for the world. This means we want to use cryptocurrency to bring economic freedom to people all over the world. This is difficult and important work, and every employee at Coinbase signed up because they are excited about this mission.
More details here: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...
The fact that you immediately jumped to calling it a "screed"—not once, but twice—despite allegedly not knowing this reveals your motives quite clearly. You are simply ideologically opposed to the message, not its form, and in favor of the imposition of a woke monoculture.
Your dishonest use of an obvious motte-and-bailey in your last sentence is just the cherry on top.
They are assuming no such thing. You are simply putting words into people's mouths, shamelessly.
But perhaps it's not such a bad thing for you to push people away from your position with such shameless behavior.
Your second paragraph is a word salad and non-sequitur. Treating a human who claims they're a deer as a human isn't denying their existence.
Criticizing retaliatory and intellectually dishonest hit pieces makes him sound like he isn't open to dissent
Non-sequitur.
Despite being a socialist, Orwell was very critical of the socialists of his time (especially the Soviets and Spanish communists), to the extent that he gradually became a Labour reformist later in life. In all, his most significant contribution, as he himself perceived it, was opposition to totalitarianism and to the corruption of language and thought by the political Left. On that, one can certainly "agree with his politics" without agreeing with all of it.
Techbros are notably far-right.
I'm sure everything looks "far-right" from your far-left perspective.
Edward Snowden is absolutely a leftist
On what basis do you claim that? Does the following paint the picture of a leftist in your mind?
And he became furious about Obama’s domestic policies on a variety of fronts. For example, he was offended by the possibility that the new president would revive a ban on assault weapons. “See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment,” Snowden wrote, in another chat. “Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.”
At the time the stimulus bill was being debated, Snowden also condemned Obama’s economic policies as part of a deliberate scheme “to devalue the currency absolutely as fast as theoretically possible.” (He favored Ron Paul’s call for the United States to return to the gold standard.) [...] He sent Ron Paul two contributions of $250 during the 2012 presidential primaries.
Ayn Rand seems to have inspired his personal philosophy. [0]
[0] https://fee.org/articles/snowden-s-muse-was-ayn-rand-s-john-...
In practice, leftism has led to the most tyrannical, murderous, and totalitarian regimes in human history. That's the simple fact of the matter, and no amount of coping can change it.
The fact that you even dare to excuse Soviet totalitarianism with the perennial excuse of tyrants, "the need to defend the revolution never ended", betrays your own authoritarian leanings.
You are extremely ignorant and misinformed.
Why are you lying?
An alarming 25.5 percent of survey respondents said it would be appropriate to “create an obstruction, such that a campus speaker endorsing this idea could not address an audience.” This authoritarian view was held by about 19 percent of self-identifying liberals, 3 percent of moderates, and 3 percent of conservatives.
Among students who self-identify as liberals, some 10 percent said they hear “disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments” about foreign students at least several times a semester, 14 percent said they hear disparaging comments about Muslims, 20 percent said they hear such comments about African Americans, 20 percent said they hear such comments about Christians, 21 percent said they hear such comments about LGBTQ individuals, and 57 percent said they hear such comments about conservatives. Among moderates, 68 percent said that they hear “disrespectful, inappropriate, or offensive comments” about conservatives at least several times a semester.
Roughly 92 percent of conservatives said they would be friends with a liberal, and just 3 percent said that they would not have a liberal friend. Among liberals, however, almost a quarter said they would not have a conservative friend.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/evidence-c...
In Compromising Scholarship, a 2011 book by sociologist George Yancey, some 30% of sociologists acknowledged that they would be less likely to hire a job applicant if they knew he was a Republican. Yancey further discovered that 15% of political scientists and 24% of philosophy professors would discriminate against Republican job applicants, and at least 30% of professors in all disciplines surveyed would discriminate against members of the NRA.
Other research suggests that liberal professors sometimes act on these biases. Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter found in 2009's The Politically Correct University that socially conservative professors tend to work at lower-ranked institutions than their publication records would suggest. More recently, a 2016 study of elite law schools in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy found that libertarian and conservative professors publish more than their peers, which suggests that right-leaning law professors must outshine liberals to reach the summits of their profession.
These findings are especially striking given that other research shows it is more difficult for scholars to publish work that reflects conservative interests and perspectives. A 1985 study in the American Psychologist, for example, assessed the outcomes of research proposals submitted to human subject committees... The study found that the proposals on reverse discrimination were the hardest to get approved, often because their research designs were scrutinized more thoroughly. In some cases, though, the reviewers raised explicitly political concerns.
https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea...
Is gravity a "construct"? Is genetics a "construct"? What exactly do you claim is the difference between a "construct" and "non-construct"? And what gives you the authority to allow certain views about said "constructs" and forbid others?
How?
I don't. Perhaps you do? Are you unable to substantiate your nonsensical claim?
Perhaps you should attempt to substantiate your nonsensical claim?
You mean ubiquitous? So? That's a non-sequitur.
By the time we had scientist-priests people didn't know why they were Christians, to begin with.
What do you mean?
Why is it weird? What are you equating publishing a private sex tape with?
In its famous "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", the SPLC chose to include such figures as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
These and similar examples illustrate what kind of organization they are.
Of course they're being quashed.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are multibillion-dollar corporations that control a colossal share of online communications.
You approve of said quashing because it aligns with your political ideology.
Those people are free to print their own newsletters or run their own websites.
And if the registrars and payment processors do the same, as has already happened? You'll move the goalposts again.
No, I don't. Why don't you answer the question?
That's not "moving the goal posts".
Your first comment:
Whose voice is getting quashed in the US? Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, email, phones, a magazine, protests, their own news channels, subReddits.
Your second comment:
So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB?