[dang]

> Unsurprisingly, having the rule of law applied even in the pursuit of those who seek to end it is smeared by those who

Please don't post grandiose ideological rhetoric here. It's flamebait, and we're trying to avoid what that leads to.

[SomeStupidPoint]

I've mentioned it before, but it seems that the mods only enforce this rule (and similar ones) very selectively: precisely those times that "grandiose ideological rhetoric" disagrees with groupthink. This comment is no more grandiose, ideological, or rhetorical than hundreds I've seen recently on a myriad of topics.

I think the very notion of "flamebait" is an Orwellian euphemism for not agreeing with popular sentiment: it's not mere disagreement, it's flamebait, so of course we must censor it!

I'm very curious: what are the statistics on times you've applied this rule to comments you agree with versus those you don't -- or do you always disagree with "flamebait"?

[pyre]

> "flamebait" is an Orwellian euphemism for not agreeing with popular sentiment

Well, there's also the manner in which you present yourself and your argument that counts for something. It's flamebait if it is presented in such a way to do nothing but start an argument (i.e. not constructive).