[quirkafleeg]

Indeed. Rather than worrying about hurting the feelings of someone sharing a "difficult situation" (the horrible exploitation and abuse of someone else, that they admit themselves they "feel complicit" in), perhaps some people here should spare more concern for the actual victim.

[dang]

Comments on HN do nothing for the victim, and it's self-righteous posturing to pretend they do. We don't do this kind of thing because we care about someone we'd never heard of until a minute ago. It's an opportune way to get some of our own anger out and see ourselves as moral at the same time.

Lashing out at the person you're talking to, on the other hand, actually can do harm—and that only means hurting the victim further as well.

[quirkafleeg]

> Comments on HN do nothing for the victim

What was the point of the original comment then, in your opinion? Just to upset people here?

> and it's self-righteous posturing to pretend they do.

This is nothing more than your opinion, based on nothing more than your imagination.

> We don't do this kind of thing because we care about someone we'd never heard of until a minute ago. It's an opportune way to get some of our own anger out and see ourselves as moral at the same time.

So if someone you didn't know a minute ago was hit by a bus, or tripped on the pavement, or dropped their shopping, the only reason you'd stop to help is because you want to show how moral you are?

Most people are not that sociopathic, and I doubt you're unaware of that fact, so I'm not sure why you're pretending other people's motives can only be selfish or insincere.

> Lashing out at the person you're talking to, on the other hand, actually can do harm—and that only means hurting the victim further as well.

Can you quote where the poster "lashed out" at the OP, because all I remember is they called him complicit in the exploitation (which the OP said himself is what he feels) and then said "free her".

[quirkafleeg]

And as per usual, downvoter/s (assuming they are genuine downvotes) are totally incapable of addressing any of the points made. Just more mindless dislikes.

[dang]

I'm afraid your comments to HN have been breaking the site guidelines badly for quite a while. You've been uncivil—often egregiously so, such as repeatedly accusing others of being Nazis—and gotten into lots of flamewars. This is unacceptable, we ban accounts that do it, and I'm banning yours now.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail]. We unban accounts when people give us reason to believe that they'll follow the site rules in the future.

[quirx]

You're banning my account because I had the temerity to ask you to back up your claims, including the deletion of another poster's comment then falsely claiming he "lashed out" at someone in it.

Who you're trying to kid, other than yourself, by pretending otherwise is anyone's guess, but if I'd genuinely been badly violating the rules for quite a while, why was I only banned now, after posting something to you that you're unable to answer?

As for "repeatedly accusing others of being Nazis", now you're not even trying. That's simply a blatant lie that anyone reading this before you delete it can verify is false merely by checking my posts.

The only time I've even called someone a "Nazi sympathizer" is WRT an actual Nazi sympathizer, in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12962943

As I say in that thread:

     Just as Holocaust denial isn't *literally* saying the Holocaust
     didn't happen, being a Nazi sympathizer is not about shouting 
     Sieg Heil, it's about picking away at small things here and 
     there. Minimizing or ignoring the crimes or victims of the Nazis
     (which cyberferret did), emphasizing the offences of the Allies
     (which cyberferret did), posting misinformation and/or lies 
     (which cyberferret did). All textbook far-right/neo-Nazi tactics.

cyberferret posted lies straight from the David Irving school of Nazi atrocity denial and was upvoted by the resident far-right crowd here at Hacker News, who, as all crybabies do when they lose the argument, also started flagging posts they don't like, to be rescued by the mods.

My correction of him - using facts taken from his own link that he hadn't even bothered to read - was downvoted, and I was attacked by the mods for calling him what he is, just as you're doing now, in line with the far-right bias of Hacker News.

Another example of that far-right bias - that I'm not the only person to have noticed or remarked upon - is mentioned in the same thread, where you or some other mod deleted an entirely civil undisputed historical fact:

"Maybe we should also remember that most of the people who signed this document owned slaves"

because it had so many upvotes it couldn't be buried in downvotes by far-right racists here.

This is the site you're running. Apparently you're not ashamed of it.

Thanks for reminding me.