Which modern, high quality of life, non capitalist countries are less harmful to the environment?
>You have no scruples at all do you? "No insight into" then you go on avoiding the point and just falsely suggesting that I said something I didn't say (treating all historical North American societies as one, which is ridiculous), what a deeply dishonest thing to write, shame on you.
What was your point then? You were leveraging some native American sentiments and factually incorrect popular myths on their beliefs about property ownership to contend falsely that they had better economic systems devoid of profit motive or property.
>I won't be wasting energy on replies that have zero prospect of breaking through that dogma. I can see others have tried with no success.
The irony coming from someone with entirely unsourced, repeatedly demonstrably false assertions, while I have provided endless examples and sources.
Sorry, not sorry for sticking to my well researched and verbosely sources principles and reasoning because random strangers on the internet regurgitate easily countered dogma from ideologues and propagandists.
I can tell you exactly what evidence would look like that would change my mind about any topic I hold strong beliefs about. Meanwhile you can't even stick to one topic.
Your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and we ban such accounts regardless of what they're battling for or against. I've therefore banned this one. If you or anyone want further explanation, see these links:
What a sad state of affairs when pushing back against the bullshit spread by the very prolific reactionaries, albeit polite (which is all that matters here), of this site sooner or later gets one banned. To add insult to injury most of them have been posting on HN for many years.
I don't know what you're referring to, but if there are accounts breaking the HN guidelines the way you were doing, which we haven't banned yet, I'd like to know which ones they are.
Everyone thinks that we're secretly siding with their opponents when we do this kind of moderation (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but that feeling is not based in fact. It's just an inversion of your own sympathies. The other side thinks we're ruining the site by secretly siding with you.
You alone can't do anything about the demographics and their biases here. Buy if you honestly believe that HN is somehow politically neutral you're deluded.
It does't require a sociologist to realise that when certain topics degenerates into 500-1000 comments of bullshit and others doesn't even register that this user base has a certain bias.
Finally, what is seen as ideological warfare naturally follows the overton window. I could directly translate liberal/conservative folks posts here into a equivalent socialist narrative instead and it would be seen as ideological warfare because it's simply out of the ordinary.
You can just look through my comment history and the users I've replied to if you're genuinely interested.
Actually I'm not making any argument or claim about political neutrality, and I don't think I've ever made such a claim. That would be a difficult thing to study, if it's even possible.
I'm making an empirical observation about how people with strong political passions react when they get moderated, and the rather obvious root of those reactions. The fact that people of all ideologies and political types react with exactly the same reflex is relevant because it clarifies that root so vividly.
