Please elaborate? I presented an actual perspective. You have gone around these threads and insulted and demeaned people with a different opinion than the majority and then even equivocated these criticisms to a debate about a fictional character ("You guys might as well be bickering about Spider-Man."). That's not only incredibly dishonest, you really should be ashamed to stoop to such a level publicly. Intentionally framing a debate as not important or just a "flame war" is exactly how you get mindless echo chambers. Musk is a public figure who has had substantial investment in his companies via U.S. tax dollars. He's not a Marvel character, you doughnut.
Not once have you called out people hurling personal insults towards people that have a minority opinion on this board, you've done the exact opposite.
You have implied my statements violate some aspect of HN, but you're going to need to specifically point out which statements do that. Dissent is not violation. You might not be interested in the dissent or critique but you can't use your position as moderator to quell it.
And if you're actually willing to be honest with yourself, or even devote some amount of diligent effort to pretend you're here to upload intellectual standards (despite discouraging dissenting opinions), you need to explain why blatant personal attacks are being allowed in threads you are most definitely reading.
> I'll add that all you're doing by venting like this is feeding the very PR you deplore,
Dang, that's a unsubstantiated view point and you know it. I'm honestly in shock you think that's a valid point to make (I'm not). Please explain how someone who gets public attention as a status quo is somehow actually being fueled by his critics. This talking point comes in up various contexts and is always meant to dismiss critique or even worse, victim blame. What the actual fuck are you on?
To recap since you most definitely again will side step any critique of moderating actions:
* What rules am I violating and where. A simple quote of my statement and the rule will suffice.
* Why are you framing the debate as if it's about a fictional character, when it's the CEO of a company who receives significant funding from U.S. tax payer dollars.
* How does critiquing a public figure's positive media coverage in a small thread somehow get the news to continue positive coverage?