Also: we ban accounts that use HN primarily for ideological battle, regardless of what they're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, it destroys what it is for, and I had to ask you about this already.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
It’s your website, but history will not judge you kindly.
As before, you compare similar handling of centre-left and far right politics. Good luck with that.
> If you ban polemics, you side with the dominant ideology.
There's a strong version and a weak version of that argument. Using it to justify garden-variety internet swipes like "only Americans and children could believe such an absurd statement" is the weak version, and not very persuasive.
Thoughtful critique is welcome here, and curious conversation between people who respect each other and listen to each other is hardly a 'dominant ideology'. The problem is that a lot of us (all of us, most likely) use noble concepts to justify treating others badly.
Swipes at Americans are useful, it can make them wonder why their country is so hated across the world. It can also be useful as part of a wider polemic to re-focus on the real contradiction: imperialists versus the rest of us.
Your rules as enforced absolutely reinforce imperialism, regardless of your intentions. Again, it’s your website. I’m not going to convince you, just trying to explain to you what you’re doing.
If you want to actually be heard, you need to communicate in a way that works for the other.
It’s not surprising you’d side with the empire, your material interests align with it. Y combinator is after all part of the export of capital at usury rates. It’s ok, when our turn comes we will make no excuses either.
The overwhelming majority of ethical and moral progression in human history coincided with the extension of private property rights to more and more of the general population, and retracted when those rights were rescinded.
This occurred both because of the recognition of humanity that goes along with granting these rights, and the technological progressions enabled by allowing opportunity and innovation to occur in larger swaths of the population rather than an aristocratic hyperminority.
Capitalism was once revolutionary against feudalism, as the bourgeoisie replaced the nobility as the ruling class. But that hasn't been the case for centuries.
I must ask. Why, according to you, was he a "literal man child"?
Have you actually read Marx or Engels? You'll find a holistic understanding of capitalism and its roots, its upsides and its downsides.