> For a list intended to finger-point at the other side, it's weak sauce.

I'm not finger-pointing to the other side. I'm not saying that they are doing anything wrong by posting ideological things. I am accusing you of political bias.

> The other was posting exclusively about environmental issues and I've asked them to stop, but actually they weren't being particularly ideological-battle or flamewarrish about it, so even they didn't really deserve to be mentioned in this context.

Your biases show themselves even here. A particular form of environmental activism isn't ideological? Of course it is.

And of course, you totally ignored the "christofascists" vs "blight on the society" thing.

> So much for your 'data'.

My "data" is something I just typed up in a short amount of time while being angry after knowing that you are probably going to ban my account (and you had already applied a lot of restrictions before that, with no warnings or explanations). I could spend some time and give you real data, but would it matter? You've already decided that you don't care.

> I'd never claim that HN's moderation is free of bias (how would I know)?

Of course you could know, if you cared. You obviously can try to measure these things.

> It's odd for you to argue systemic bias by digging up lists (weak as they are) of who gets moderated more. Suppose group X breaks the rules more often—obviously more Xs will get moderated. That's evidence of non-bias as much as anything else. Or to put it in terms you'll surely recognize: maybe more of them are in jail because they commit more crimes.

But that's not what I tried to do. I tried to do a comparison. I pointed out that there are left-wing accounts posting a lot of ideological stuff (or outright epithets like "christofascist", "insurrectionist", "racist", "sexist", etc.) and you don't seem to care. While you either ban or give a warning to the right-wingers doing a similar thing.

> The truth is that you've been ideologically trolling HN,

What trolling? That's you biases showing up again. People sometimes do genuinely have beliefs that you may find "outrageous".

> Blame is always on others, never on self, and there's only reason to read the rules: to bash the other side for breaking them more. How about sincerely trying to follow the rules in the first place, one might wonder?

Yet again, I must emphasize that I'm not doing that. I am not accusing the other side of breaking the "rule" more than I do. I explicitly said that in a previous comment that I don't even think they should be banned. [1] I saying that HN's moderation is politically biased, and I don't appreciate that.

> Oh no no, we'd never do that—they're rigged against us so it's unthinkable.

What is the "rule"? That you should pretend that you don't have an ideology when posting to HN? Especially so if you are a right-winger, because HN's political demography is similar to California, and we get outraged more by hearing right-wing things?

> you all resemble your enemies at the opposite pole far more than you resemble anybody else

That's like Reddit-level "horseshoe theory" [2], and very far from the truth.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37368087

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory