I believe you. But hear me when I say: you would be wrong for doing so. It's one of HN's strengths that it doesn't just not punish contrarian views, but actively encourages them. It's an attitude that resonates strongly with me, and a value that is rare and precious. And, I was careful to say "suggestive", which is an appropriately weak statement.
What's more, is we see evidence of how views like yours, to crush dissent by force, leads to weakness. Every strongman that surrounds himself with yes-men are weakened by the practice. They become detached from reality, coddled by delusion, and ultimately less effective in the world.
That's not to say that all criticism is good - it's not. Plenty of bad faith criticism exists, too: rooted in lies, or envy, or sadism, designed to harm, to demoralize, to weaken. In some cases because someone is paying you, and often because you don't really know what you're doing. Sometimes because you're having a bad day.
How does one distinguish one type of input from another? I think 90% of the time it's easy - when someone speaks in absolutes, when they demonstrate no self-restraint, when they go down the path of "everything bad said about you is true, everything good is false", they have become a zealous enemy, and yes, in that case I think I would seek to ban them. We would all pursue defamation cases against anyone who would attack us in this way (but don't because it's just too bloody expensive).
With my comment, was I doing this? No, clearly not. I may be factually wrong, but I don't think so and I wrote the comment in good faith; it accurately reflects the appearance of a situation. And I know from experience how easily people can grant themselves exceptions to their own rules when it is convenient, and I see it as a gesture of respect to point out the appearance of it. They can take it, and I have faith that they won't punish me for saying so. It feels like...safety. And you would take it away, not just from me, but from others who share these values!