[diffs]

This is both harsh and untrue. While I've allowed myself to be baited here, I've clearly discussed other topics.

This is (was?) a somewhat new account as well. How big of a buffer should I have before I'm allowed to discuss controversial topics without fearing the ban hammer?

[dang]

We have no interest in being unfair, and anyone who genuinely wants to use HN as intended should have no trouble getting unbanned.

In this context, the test for whether an account is using HN as intended or not is whether it is primarily using the site for ideological/political/etc. battle. If an account is mostly using HN for the latter, which yours plainly is, then it's not using the site as intended.

I think that answers your question, no? It's not about buffer size, it's about what an account is primarily using HN for. It's supposed to be used for intellectual curiosity in a kind of meandering random walk. It's not supposed to be used for prosecuting fixed agendas, regardless of what the agenda is.

[diffs]

I disagree on what is plain here. Having said that, how does one go about getting unbanned?

[dang]

I counted about 20 comments on political topics and 4 on others. That's plainly on the wrong side of the "primarily" test.

If you want to commit to using the site primarily for intellectual curiosity and only secondarily for politics/ideology/etc., we can unban the account.