> I probably take the threats to your elections more seriously than you (I read whole of the the Antrim County computer forensics report, I'll never get that time back but I put in the effort).

I don't think that's true, since you think that people being banned on social media is a greater threat to a fall to authoritarianism.

> To label ideological opponents with the label of a mental illness simply for disagreement is a poor show.

I did not do this. Nor is this just "simply for disagreement." Argument over the best way of funding retirement savings programs is distinct from arguments over whether or not to throw gay people in prison, for example.

> I take anyone being banned from anything for speech that should be free (which is almost all speech) very seriously.

I'm sure you do. I hope that you also donate your time and money to those who suffer at the hands of people spreading hate.

> haha Nazis are shit" is below par for HN. Try not to waste my time and others with stuff you can safely spew out on Twitter and get likes for even though it's vapid.

Nazis are shit. You are treating me like a child. You use this "you talk like you are on Twitter" move pretty often as a way of talking down to people.

> you think that people being banned on social media is a greater threat to a fall to authoritarianism.

That's a strange reading that seems to assume that free speech goes hand in hand with authoritarianism, a laughable notion. Free speech is the antithesis of authoritarianism. No authoritarian has ever allowed anything approaching freedom of speech within their jurisdiction and sometimes even enforce it far beyond. As such, what you think is wrong.

> > To label ideological opponents with the label of a mental illness simply for disagreement is a poor show.

> I did not do this.

A phobia is a mental illness, you call your ideological opponents transphobes, so you did do this. It's pathetic name calling.

> I hope that you also donate your time and money to those who suffer at the hands of people spreading hate.

I'm here right now spending my time doing just that because you quite clearly do hate your opponents.

> Nazis are shit. You are treating me like a child.

No one here has claimed that Nazis aren't shit but you're acting like a teenager high on self righteousness that thinks proclaiming that is some kind of insight for the rest of us. It is childish.

As I wrote, HN isn't the place, and one reason I bring it up far too often is because far too often of late I see people, like yourself, treating it as such. I make no apologies for wanting the standards to remain high.

Wow. You complain about the quality of discourse and then resort to arguing that transphobia means something completely different than its ordinary use (and obviously my intention) based entirely on definition-by-etymology. Of everything in this thread between you and me, this is the most clearly in bad faith.

Tell you what. I'll change all my words if it'll make you take me seriously. Substitute "bigots against trans people." It'll change none of my meaning.

It's ordinary use is the one I'm complaining about. It's a slur that implies irrational hatred, disgust and fear - that is a mental illness, hence why phobia is appended to the objects of fear.

There's a reason such a misnomer is used, and there's a reason why those using it such as yourself, seem to overlook its utterly mistaken connotations.

> Substitute "bigots against trans people." It'll change none of my meaning.

I know, but you're begging the question, while being an ironic hypocrite. How about you substitute a specific and accurate term for those you disagree with, or would it be too difficult for you to actually drop the ad hominem for even a moment out of fear of being shown up?