I don't think you're a neo-nazi. The problem is that with the arguments being made, everyone has plausible deniability because they're only defending X because of his right to free speech, or because he's trying to fix the ethics in game journalism.

But I believe that taking the comments, and stories getting votes, in the last weeks in aggregate, there's a statistical signal that requires mention.

To add to the excellent example of pcj50: I think we've seen something very similar with the treatment the "Google diversity memo" story got. If you check the stories that were upvoted on HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=manifesto&sort=byPopularity&pr...) you'll see that they're >90% in favour of what's written.

Now there's obviously the possibility that this memo was simply right, and it was just the reasonable thing to support the author. But I'd like to point out that:

- We saw the same, repeated, deference to "free speech", i.e. an attempt to frame support for him as some sort of higher principle (similar to the previously-mentioned "ethics in game journalism", or even Saturday's right-wing rallies in Boston etc. also invoking "free speech").

- There was a tendency to invoke "science" in support of him, just as the comment that started this thread invoked some sort of autistic super-rationality as the root cause of some unspecified "non-PC" comments. This ignored both scientists criticising the memo's content, as well as the first argument brought up by every single opponent: confusing what is with what ought to be, or (in other words) the nurture-vs-nature debate.

- The author's subsequent choice of associating mainly with a very specific segment of the media, namely men's rights and alt-right outlets. If I were asked to explain my views on react.js' licence by, say, Breitbart, I would refuse.

There are other such incidents. I think this community gave much harsher treatment to Marissa Mayers, Ellen Pao, and Elizabeth Holmes than similar cases involving men, although there are obvious difficulties because each failed company failed in it's very specific way. Jason Kalanick arguably has more defenders than they had (but Uber is arguably the greater achievement), and Mt. Gox's CEO somehow never got the sort of personal focus that Holmes got. I wish I could come up with a way to measure these things.