>I resent the downvote. I made an observation and this guy comes and randomly jumps to a political conclusion about what I observed. He was absolutely and completely wrong and I didn't need to waste more than a word in response.

Let me get this straight.

You have the right to make an observation but nobody has the right can suggest otherwise (as I did)?

And if anybody dares to suggest a different theory than yours, people must take your words that he is "completely and absolutely wrong", with no argumentation provided whatsoever?

>Speculation based on first-order observations. That may not be slightly off-topic, but it's completely different from second-order politically-motivated speculation about my observations.

For one, I never said anything about your observations or you. I never characterized you anything.

I merely suggested an alternative theory of what happened to your one.

Now, can you explain this BS about "first-order observations" (as if nobody besides you can be a first-order observer of the same phenomenon)? We are all on the same social news site. He can all observe the same first-order things.

That I commented after you told us your observation and theory, doesn't make me a "second-order observer". Even eye-witnesses can have alternate stories and contradict one another. Much less here, where what was under discussion wasn't the observation itself (the facts), but the explanation of why they happened (the "exegesis").

>coldtea used my comment as his soapbox even though he didn't have the first clue what he was talking about.

And this statement is based on what? Or should the mere fact that you didn't like my comment suffice to show that "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about"?

>I should also point out that since he responded to me I couldn't downvote him.

Oh, the humanity. Somebody did the next best thing though, he went and downvoted my last pageful of comments in a very clumsy way (all N last comments down one point, which never happens -- must be someone's idea of "internet revenge"). Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but still...

>The thing I found particularly irritating is that hellbanning someone can not make you a psychopath in the way that wishing rape and death upon people does (because that is what I observed). I don't need people assuming I'm some kind of male-guilt feminist crusader just because I'm not a member all-manners-are-just-a-form-of-political-correctness-because-social-skills-are-beneath-me set.

Hell-banning is an exercise of power and censorship. Those might be needed at times, but those are very much negative aspects of society, and far more dangerous (because they have more reach and they are more serious) than some idle bullying by immature people over the internet.

Let me put it this way: wishing rape/death on the net is 4-chan, hi-school bully level shit. Censorship on the other hand is actual dictatorship level shit. Censorship has been historically associated with the very worst in societies and regimes. Immature threats from anonymous cowards on the other hand, have not.

Note also how you to others what you say you don't like for yourself: suddenly, being opposed to hell-banning is being "a member all-manners-are-just-a-form-of-political-correctness-because-social-skills-are-beneath-me set".