[lesstenseflow]

If I'm advancing an argument you disagree with, I encourage you to explain why you disagree. Ad hominem is lazy and doesn't typically get much traction in this forum.

My comment history on this account is mostly opinions that disagree with Silicon Valley corporate-woke hegemony precisely because these are opinions that can "get you in trouble,", which is why I have this anonymous account to discuss these topics.

I comment on plenty of other thing but I'm not going to risk angering those people who will gleefully try to destroy your career for having the wrong opinions on these topics.

[joshuamorton]

Engaging with trolls is also discouraged by the HN guidelines. You're engaging in a tactic called "just asking questions"[0], they're loaded questions, and given your post history its unlikely you'll engaged in good faith if someone takes the time to respond to explain precisely why they're not simply wrong, but intended to harm people and erode their rights.

[0]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

[lesstenseflow]

I haven't asked any questions, I believe I've stated my position pretty plainly, so I don't see how this "JAQ" applies here. Again: 'you have consistently expressed views I disagree with' isn't a refutation of anything. morelisp says I should be dismissed because he doesn't like my consistent expression of views he disagrees with, you seem to be saying the same.

You characterizing me as not engaging in good faith is unfair and absurd, just more ad-hominem. And regarding "harm people and erode their rights" I want to know how you regard the rights of women in prison, and whether their right to be housed safely (not with a male rapist) is a right you consider important. I suppose you'll regard me disagreeing with you and challenging your worldview as some sneaky and nefarious form of trolling rather than what it is (argument) so I don't expect an answer, but I do hope you think about it.