i mean, this is a set of opinions and positions that are far beyond anything that could be called "moderate opinion[s] on gender representation" and are pretty uncontroversially terrible, particularly in the context of any non-homogeneous community of people
if you post something like this to the public internet and stand behind it, then man i'm not sure what you expect, you're self-identifying as an asshole, and it can't be surprising when you're banned from places as a consequence
edit: good lord, i clicked around a bit more on that website, dude is obviously a psychopath, and i feel duped even responding to this kind of nonsense
> The first step to resist or undo Woke Invasion in your organization (or your psyche) is to thoroughly understand its creed Critical Race Theory, so as to uncover the fact that generally speaking woke disciples care less about the problems in the world than assuaging their self-centered ideological feelings. 1 The next step, obviously, is then to effectuate an elimination of the wannabe woke invaders from your organization by instituting a culture based on common sense values stripped of identity politics.
this wildly pejorative definition of the central concept at play in the discussion, probably, is a good start to what i find objectionable, yeah?
or maybe the author's own definition of "wokeism"
> Wokeism is a secular religion that originated in the United States of America, based on the pseudoscienfic field Critical Race Theory. It presumably took roots around 2016 (see Woke Invasion) and has been withering away since around 2024. Bigoted ideologies like neoracism fall under wokeism.
which is about on the same level as vaccines cause autism
i'm sure there are lots of people who think otherwise and maybe you're one of them but frankly there is nothing useful to be gained by arguing the merits of this kind of stupidity
I prefer to follow the HN guidelines and not use language like that, but the feeling is mutual. (And I can assure you that the ideas you're trying to dismiss as fringe are in fact quite widely supported.)
Regardless, I'll try:
Certainly srid's rhetoric there would not be appropriate in the HN comment section (and you can see a clear difference in style between that rhetoric and srid's actual HN comments). But it frankly comes across that you primarily object to the fact that someone else doesn't like your politics and seeks to prevent such politics from taking root in more places.
And srid very clearly refers to documented and evidenced phenomena: many academics are quite open about their use of CRT, and there are clear connections between that theory and observable real-world policy (in particular, policies that attempt to effectively implement racial quotas while pretending they are not racial quotas), and abundant critiques of the pseudoscience involved. What is here called "neoracism" (not a term I've heard anywhere else) seems to simply mean racism that targets white people (and sometimes Asians; and where this happens, pointing out Asian victims often seems required in order to get anyone to care). This demonstrably exists (the people claiming it not to exist will commonly engage in it, and commonly seek to redefine terms to excuse themselves), is obviously bigoted (on basic principles of morality that children understand), and has clear real-world impact (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v...).
Your shallow dismissal of all of this, aside from not being how we do things here, is ignorant of the available evidence. Taking the so-called "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" efforts at face value is a mistake. We are talking here about people who believe that racism is inherent to being white (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22all+white+people+are+racist%22), and invent terms like "whiteness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_theory) in order to perpetuate harmful stereotypes (leading to additional concepts like "white fragility", "white defensiveness", "white degeneracy", "white space" etc.). It is pseudoscientific because many of those terms are aimed at not only dismissing criticism without addressing it, but holding up the act of criticism itself as evidence.
This is all definitionally racist (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism especially sense 1), but works by seeking to change the definitions (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22privilege+plus+power%22) as if reality itself could be controlled through language (it of course cannot, but seeking to shape thought through deliberate change to language was a central theme in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four).
And it is not just theoretical. People such as (Hunter) Ashleigh Shackleford get paid to give presentations like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo and it ultimately leads to stories like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonTBkjLn3U?t=4m10s .
This is tricky. Human rights exist for assholes. There is not much point of rights just for good people
So long as they leave those opinions on their blog, and off the forums, should they be banned?
private communities (which in this context would include any website that doesnt end in .gov) banning assholes, has no impact on the human rights of those banned assholes, it is not a human right that you get to have an account on a private website
in the same way that getting trespassed from chipotle for not wearing pants when ordering your burrito bowl, doesn't mean your rights have been violated
Should the quality of your opinions, outside the forum, be considered?
It is a difficult problem when dealing with notorious assholes. If they are playing a constructive part inside the organisation, at what level of notoriety and assholeness should the moderators pull the pin?
