I had to go back 79 days and what felt like hundreds of posts to find any exception (something about heat pumps I think!), but then scrolling further back just led through reams more of the same. That means your account is definitely on the wrong side of the "primarily" test (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...)
To say that you're simply correcting inaccuracies and misinformation doesn't really work because the question of what counts as accurate vs. misinformation is hotly disputed. It is basically the entirety of the battle.
On the other hand, your comments have mostly (though not entirely) been avoiding the more degraded forms of guidelines breakage that people resort to in these threads - things like snark, name-calling, and from there into personal attacks, slurs, and so on. That's good, but it's not enough—if you want to keep posting on HN we need you not to use the site primarily for political battle (broadly construed).
Why ban the other account and not yours? The primary difference is that your account does have a history of using HN as intended. I had to go (too) far back to find it, but it was there. In such a case we prefer to warn first, not ban outright. The other difference is that I saw a lot more cases of the other account breaking the site guidelines egregiously. That combination (no history of using HN as intended + breaking the guidelines egregiously) is what tends to push us across the warn/ban line.
But no—to address the question that people often wonder about—this is not about either person's views about the underlying topic. Moderation would be exactly the same if the positions were flipped, and indeed often has been.