[razingeden]

Well good for you. I’m still permanently banned from Xitter just for explaining what GoF even is.

Im sure it has nothing to do with Allison Fauci being a Twitter systems engineer at the time.

Selective enforcement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen just because you’re still online.

[epistasis]

Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience.

In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.

[razingeden]

Ahem. I said I described GoF and got banned for it.

> but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment

Is sneering “believe all women” at people you disagree with one of these forms of “harassment” ? Or just discussions about biology?

Not sure what you’re suggesting here. That is okay. Honestly, I don’t care about anything you have to say.

[Aeglaecia]

this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse.

im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.

[epistasis]

Political topics are censored en masse on HN, and this entire thread is all political, not scientific. It's so political that somebody replied to me with "kill yourself" which is something I've never experienced in my years on the internet. Much less on HN which is more buttoned up than other areas.

If you think I was "coming out swinging with personal accusations" please realize that I had very mild criticism, and I honestly do not understand how you can consider anything I said personal. It is a very inflammatory and incorrect framing! That is not a personal attack in any way. Preemptively complaining about downvotes is without a doubt playing a fake victim, which is discouraged by the guidelines.

Maybe you are not used to having your ideas challenged, but you came to a scientific subject with very political and emotional framing and inapt comparisons and saying "oh aren't I brave for making this comparison which is inapt."

This is a great science article, but seeing the exceptionally low quality political nature of the discussion here, it's quite appropriate that it was flagged. Apparently this topic is a honeypot for bad-faith and pointless political discussions that are not based in reality with parties coming in pre-aggrieved.

[Aeglaecia]

id apologise for expressing myself in a manner that wasn't directly related to the figures in the linked article , but that was accounted for by me initially positing that the figures themselves are the only difference in the given hypothetical. so what if my comment was an invitation to pick apart a hypothetical comparison related to the article - by saying it, i inherently ask for the idea to be challenged. since then youve attacked my language, called me self victimising, then delivered the diatribe that this comment responds to ... in other words, it genuinely appears to me as though you'd rather challenge my composure instead of the argument at hand.

if i was in your shoes id be mad so please reflect that you may not have immersed yourself in the given comparison as intended. conscientious objectors are often imprisoned and this is actually a lot more extreme than the combination of government vaccine mandate ostracization + social ostracization. your violent response is a great example of the latter.

viable non mrna vaccines were available less than a year after the initial mrna vaccines were released. we could have waited a bit and enforced something significantly less prone to unknown side effects. one last olive branch before i get flagged - aside from astronomical corporate profits, what was the advantage of subjecting the world to a science experiment?