[muninn_]

Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?

Immigration is a loaded topic. We can't afford to let every single person on the planet who wants a better life to move here. Maybe they should work on improving their own countries instead? Mass immigration is unsustainable with growing populations.

And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself.

You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people. They are both in bed with corporations and they both need to be rooted out and removed from office. If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans.

[dang]

> you don't know what you're talking about [...] You're delusional

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and repeatedly ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

[s73ver]

"Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?"

Like the end to discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Like the end to yearly and lifetime caps on coverage. Like the end to insurance companies just being able to drop you the minute you get sick.

"Immigration is a loaded topic."

No, it's not.

"And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself."

No, it's not. It's pointing out the faults in your argument.

"You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people."

And you're far too cynical if you think they don't, or if you think that they're the same.

"If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans."

Wrong. No matter how much you hope that they're the same, they are not. Again, all it takes is looking at the various issues facing people today. Healthcare. Immigration. Minority rights. Voting rights. For you to say they are equally as bad is for you to say you have never actually looked at anything, and want an excuse not to.

I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you who don't even bother to look at the issues, and just choose the easy way out. Do not bother responding back with another easily disproven and shot down argument.

[dang]

> I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines as well as for using it primarily for ideological battle (an abuse of the site, as I've explained many times) and ignoring our requests to stop. We'd be happy to unban you if you'd actually like to use the site as intended, but alas that seems not to be the case.

[s73ver_]

I have never ignored your requests. I would like to point out that you do have it out for several people, and very unfairly issue warnings and bans to those people while ignoring far more grievous violations of your TOS, including ones against me.

The out of context snippet you quoted is no more a violation than most other things on this site. For you to go after certain viewpoints like you do, not out of any notion of preserving civility, but to silence certain viewpoints, smacks of censorship.

[dang]

I hear this complaint a lot, so perhaps it's inevitable that HN moderation comes across to ideologically committed users as a secret censorship of their views, and/or that it feels like we must be lying when we say it's about your conduct on the site, and/or that we have it in for you personally.

However, the people holding the opposite views say exactly the same thing (including yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14984601). And there are plenty of users arguing for the same positions as you who respect HN's rules and consequently don't get moderated or banned. So from my perspective, your posts have more in common with those from the opposite extreme (i.e. posts by users whom you would regard as your enemies) than with the majority of community members who share your views.

It's certainly true that moderation gets applied inconsistently but that's not for ideological reasons nor because our principles are inconsistent. It's because we only see a portion of the comments that get posted here (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025 for more explanation).

[s73ver_]

I can appreciate that, due to the news of the week, you've had a harder than normal job, and I can safely say that I'm glad I'm not in your place. But I still can't help but feel the moderation is applied inconsistently. Not necessarily by any particular ideology, but simply by content that people just disagree with. I was dinged not long ago simply for posting a calm, fairly innocuous post, with no vitriol or malice. Those replying were more uncivil, yet I was dinged. And, because I was dinged, I could not reply to appeal.

I do not wish to draw this out further than I have already. I know you have a hard job, and I am sorry for losing my cool at the tail end of the above discussion.

[dang]

I appreciate that and hear you. If you want to continue the discussion I'd be happy to do so at [e-mail].