Netflix to Employees: If you don't like our content, you can quit

You turned this thread into a hellish flamewar in multiple places—like, at least 6 different places if I counted right. That's basically arson. We ban that sort of account. If you don't want to be banned, please review the guidelines and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Note these two, among others:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31379889.

Edit: you've been using HN for ideological battle in other places too—e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31378481. It's not ok to abuse the site this way, regardless of what your views are or how right you feel they are. No more of this, please.

If you keep using HN for hellish flamewar, we will ban you. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31389366.

Shifting goalposts, are we, after your 'clearly' comment did not even contain a grain of truth about what OP posted?

And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn't that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I'd assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported. As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn't even tell jokes and yet you're mesmerized, I'll have to side with the 'punching down' argument. This campaign of his will not age well.

I understand his frustration, and, in his words, jealousy, to see how far LGBTQ+ rights have come compared to the much older issue of Black rights, but that's a really poor justification to rant against the former.

Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc. Sure, some will like this.

> So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption

This mis-represents what I said.

This thread started with "how to disagree without being accused of being bigoted."

You can form your beliefs however you like. That's a different situation than being in conversation with another person. If you "respond" to someone in a way that does not acknowledge the content of what they said, they may reasonably accuse you of not taking them seriously. There are many reasons to not take someone seriously - including having bigoted views. If you want to avoid being accused of being bigoted, I find it helps to acknowledge (even to just say you don't buy them) even the most extreme views of someone in a vulnerable population. It is polite and it keeps you in conversation with the other person.

If you don't want to be in conversation with someone then, of course, you don't need to acknowledge what they say - but they may be upset with you and accuse you of bias. That's just...life.

I think it's good practice to be skeptical of the views held by powerful people and give more slack to more marginal views I find less credible, but that's a personal belief and it has limits.

> I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".

It's choosing to make a public statement on an issue in a way that leaves out ('erases') something that an impacted group thinks. How big a deal that is depends on the groups involved and the seriousness of the topic.

For example, when okareaman said "[t]he world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that" they are implying that trans people are upset about people saying negative things. That is probably true - but that's not the complaint about Chapelle's jokes. By pretending that the complaint is simpler (and focused on personal preference rather than an environment of violence and criminalizing of trans identity) - they 'erase' those complaints in how they discuss it. Another example could be when people ignore the different economic conditions that Millennials and Baby Boomers face and complain that any lack of Millennial success is due to personal flaws. We could talk about more extreme examples, but I hope this makes what I mean clearer.

Does this apply equally to those promoting trans agendas in the comments?

I ask because here we are, in a thread specifically about these kinds of issues, and you are threatening my account with termination for disagreeing. I don’t see any threats made to the people on the other side, despite posting incredibly divisive/controversial views.

When you selectively moderate along ideological lines you harm the community. I could understand removing these types of posts from say, a technical update about AWS as it’s off topic. This post however is about social issues and the comments are about social issues. Perhaps you think that’s off topic for HN, so maybe remove the topic entirely?