An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve

> such as rate-limiting, apply to accounts regardless of what ideological flavor they favor, so none of that is relevant

I don't know, I can't even provide a sample larger than one for that. But I think the rate-limiting thing should be due to something being triggered recently. It's not just a fixed rate limit, like the one you get when you submit too many articles in a short amount of time (which says something like "please don't post so many things that you dominate the new submissions page").

Also, ideological or not, restricting a user's privileges (in my case downvoting, flagging, vouching, probably upvoting and even submitting things) without telling them what the restrictions are, why they are being applied, and a straightforward process to appeal the decision isn't very friendly.

I even had trouble with rate-limiting when posting this very comment. It really seems that you think that I "obviously" should have self-censored [1] if I wanted to continue posting to HN. I don't plan on doing that. There is some value in standing for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

That would be our farewell, I guess. So long, and thanks for all the fish :-)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

> that they were no longer

That they might no longer be allowed to engage in chattel slavery at some indeterminate point in the future. Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war.

Ok, I'm absolutely sure that hate speech is protected under the first amendment.

> White supremacy is nothing but a threat

That's not what the supreme court seems to think.

Age, nationality, religion, marital status etc. all fall into the same category and I haven't really heard anything about religious hiring quotas. So it's still a significant leap and I'm still not sure how would this affect most Americans.

> implications in the US that came from US history

Some categories do, some don't, most are generally universally applicable, so yeah the law should primarily focus on 'ancestry' with 'caste' just being a subset of that. Which is exactly what this law is doing if I understand it correctly.

My reading of South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" says they believed otherwise.

They seemed to regard abolition as no longer a fringe policy but one which, in the North, was effectively mainstream, and were certain that after Lincoln's inauguration the North would wage a war to exterminate slavery.

> For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. ...

> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The Texans seemed to have similar viewpoints that the abolition of slavery was not a fringe policy, and would be carried out during the next administration:

> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. ...

> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

(I trust that "within the next administration" isn't what you mean by "indeterminate".)