> You are going here totally ad-hominem here.

Wait, how? I just stated the fact as I perceived it - most of your posts were in various shades of gray. That's it. I didn't say anything about you, personally, which is what 'ad-hominem' would be.

> lobbies that want to promote their solutions in order to sell them to the Hacker News audience.

I'm not involved in any way with any of such lobbies in general, nor with the Nim community in particular. What I'm interested in is the quality of the debate on HN.

> I won't censore my opinions because of them

I can't understand why do you insist that I wanted to censor your opinion. I object to one particularly stupid way of phrasing that opinion. Had you written something like "some members of the [Nim] community seemed to be dismissive or even hostile to the ideas of functional programming" - I wouldn't have said anything! It's the same opinion, and it would cost you nothing to think for a bit and consider your phrasing a bit more carefully. I would even give you a benefit of a doubt if you used quotes around "hate speech", giving a hint that it's a metaphor - but you didn't, you played it straight, and I don't understand why. Is inserting quotation marks that much of a hassle to you? Is it that you don't understand, or perceive, the difference between 'hate speech' and '"hate speech"'?

As for the "usage of language" being subjective - sure it is. While they are subjective, there are norms and rules to follow, depending on the time and place. Imagine yourself farting loudly on a family gathering, then insisting that you're entitled to do just that because it's the way you express yourself and not doing it would be censorship. Yeah, you would be right, actually, but do you honestly expect people around you to just accept the stench?

I would like to ask to simply refrain from such farting, metaphorically speaking. As I already said, accusing a community of tolerating hate speech of any kind is a very serious thing and shouldn't be done lightly. It's similar in weight to saying that someone is a Nazi, or racist, or misogynist, or a terrorist. Would you like to be called a terrorist, even if it was said metaphorically?

To summarize: I'm not talking about the content of your opinions - arguing with them is a separate matter - only about the way you phrased them. I don't want to censor your opinions. I do want to censor the "usage" of the language which is harmful to the quality of debate (and, potentially, to the community in question). I believe you that you didn't intend to use the language in such a way, but you did. Be it sloppiness, dyslexia, or whatever that caused it - you crossed the line and I reacted to that. Your phrasing could result in the damage to the community, but honestly, I'm not that interested in that; on the other hand, your phrasing did influence the quality of the discussion negatively, which is what interests me much more. Hence the reaction.

What I'm wondering about is why do you defend your "usage of language" so much. Is it really the only way you can express yourself? Is it really impossible for you to use the language in a better way? If you are handicapped somehow and really can't perceive the difference between "censore" and "censor", then I'm sorry, I won't say a word. On the other hand, if you are capable of that, then I honestly can't understand why do you insist on writing comments as sloppy as yours.