[dang]

> I feel like you're 100% okay with ideological posturing when it's politically correct and aligns with your worldview, and 100% not okay with it when is is misaligned with your worldview.

I'm glad you said "I feel", because the statement that follows is not true, nor could you know what my worldview is; you've simply imagined it. I have a feeling, too: that people say this when they don't want to admit they've been abusing HN. It's easier to believe that one is being "suppressed" and "censored"—grand political reasons instead of petty procedural ones.

> Calling anything you don't like "tedious" or "acrimonious" and then flagging and removing it

There are orders of magnitude more things that I don't like.

> Especially when PG has written articles specifically about how much he dislikes tone policing.

It's ironic that you would invoke pg when he's the person who wrote the HN guidelines, taught us how to interpret them, and in seven years of commenting on HN never once (to my knowledge) did the things we're asking you not to do. If you really understood what he wrote, you'd follow suit instead of undermining it.

[puredemo]

A moderator just a hair left of your current moderation approach on the authoritarianism scale would "flag and remove" PG's entire recent article about income inequality with a note calling it "tedious ideological posturing."

Censorship is generally the territory of petty proceduralism, not grand political gesture.

"It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is."

That's a direct quote from PG. Take it for what you will.

[dang]

This is a particularly tedious form of trolling, and since it's about all you've been posting, we've banned your account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail].