[president]

You are turning the conversation into a political one when it doesn't need to be. The idea of banning "deplatforming" does not need to be married to a political party. We can have interesting conversations on this site without pointing the finger at a political party. This is exactly the type of messaging that promotes anger and hatred in our society. Not sure why HN doesn't have rules against this type of political agitation yet has rules against "nationalistic flamewar". Maybe dang can comment on this.

[jfengel]

The issue we're talking about here is not an abstraction, but a specific law with real-world ramifications.

We've talked the abstraction to death; there is nothing new to contribute. This is an opportunity to apply it to an actual real-world instance.

That's inherently political because it was created politically. There is no way to ignore that it was crafted by one political party to the detriment of another. We can avoid naming them if you think that would help from getting people's hackles up, but it's also part of a pattern of behavior that goes far past this one instance.

Discussing this as an abstraction is a luxury for those who don't have to live with the consequences. Blaming those who object for promoting "anger and hatred", while giving a pass to those who pass the law designed to disenfranchise them, is inherently partisan.