> I find it alarming that a scientific organization has rules that restrict free speech using such vague, subjective language. Feminism has always been a sexist power movement, and the natural outcome of that is always authoritarian social policy. At it's core, feminism is about the sole focus on accruing benefits and status for one sex (or gender, depending on who you ask). Feminism fights for women's rights, but no…
Could you please follow the guidelines more closely? > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Additionally, this is a pattern with the account that needs to change: > Please don't use Hacker News primarily for politica…
- The topic of discussion was feminism, its application to institutions, and the consequences of that. I didn't introduce any topic.
- This post is directly related, and discusses how the impacts observed in the article extend from the philosophical basis of the movement and its long-term choices about which political battles to engage in.
- The post itself, and subsequent ones, were upvoted.
- The only fact that was contested was the status of men as a minority at university, which I provided a citation for.
- My post was direct, and used plain language for its points, but was not uncivil.
As far as I can tell, you're utilizing the code of conduct to empower a minority trying to censor my speech for political reasons to shut down discussion.
You are of course free to engage in politically motivated censorship as a private website, but I'd suggest you enumerate what you believe I did wrong instead of hiding behind vague allegations.
Vague allegations of violating decorum, sans factual refutation or even a challenge on the substance of my post, are the tools of a tyrant.