First of all, it would be nice of you to at least looked at the responses to this comment, and reminded users that many of those are explicitly against HN guidelines (which is objectively true, with comments like just "What on earth?" [1], and my comment is essentially stating an opinion clearly acceptable in e.g. Singapore, and I know one of your goals on HN is to not be completely US-centric). Browbeating is clearly not what HN is for, and IMO allowing it would cause a lot more damage than allowing accounts primarily used for politics. Curious political discussion has some real content, browbeating doesn't.

Secondly, the effect of that policy is to essentially ban accountants with unpopular political opinions on one side of the spectrum (because people don't want to associate it with their normal work, for obvious reasons). One evidence for this is that you've probably banned more accounts on one side of political spectrum with that rationale. That should be easy to check, since the politics of accounts which use HN primarily for politics should be quite clear from their commenting history. I'm not accusing you of personal conscious bias against right-wingers in moderation here, I'm just pointing out that policy would result in more of them getting banned, since more of them have no choice but to try to conceal their identity (due to "consequences" at work, etc.). Remember what happened to Brendan Eich?

Thirdly, I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "ideological battle". I'm merely stating my political opinions, I have tried to never escalate into personal attacks, and I have tried to always add something concrete and interesting to the discussion, along the HN'a norm of intellectual curiosity. To me, ideological "battle" would imply the kind of dogmatic political rallying I got in response to my comment.

Finally, it seems that you are banning my account on a first strike. I don't remember having any previous negative interaction with the mods.

P.S. After posting this, I also noticed that you have "shadow banned" me, in the sense that my comment looks completely normal to myself when logged in, but I can't find a trace of it when logged out. That's an unethical practice in my books, and something that you have explicitly stated that you reserve for spammers and serial trolls [2].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544213

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30342925

Well, here's something for people who insist all VPN services are a "scam". VPNs play an important role by circumventing censorship in countries with more network level internet censorship.

Traditional nuclear family is a tenant of many cultures, including the one I have a feeling of belonging to. Also, the amount of propaganda and censorship which is needed to push these things is quite worrying.

> I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution

That's unlikely, at the very least because of Lindy effect [1]. In the traditional sense, it is under attack though.

> something close to 70% support now

First, these things are measured by polls, and the outcome of course depends on how do you ask the question. Do you think you'd get the same outcome if it was phrased as "subsidising" instead of "the right to marry"? Plus, how much propaganda and censorship did that take? Are people free to make fun of these things or harshly criticise them without fear of "consequences"?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Interesting, I'm curious to know what kinds of car are popular there. I searched a bit, and it seems like after Tesla Model 3 (which is expensive), the most popular car models are Peugeot 208 and Nissan Qashqai [1]. I wasn't able to figure out how much they cost in Denmark through a quick search though.

[1]: https://www.dataforce.de/en/news/tesla-model-3-is-the-best-s...

> "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized."

[1]: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction

I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.

I'm making a distinction between the state and the government. The state also includes people who write and interpret the constitution.

> You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though.

I'm not sure why would you think I'd be against that.

> not some subset that you happen to like

It's not just some subset, it's the overwhelming majority.

In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.

But that's still heterosexual.

> And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered.

> The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example

But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?

Also, I'm not sure where did that 80k number came from. If you're using it just as an example, then I think the effective tax rate on that would be 36.25%. [1].

[1]: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%280.25*65000%2B0.85*15...

[1]: 0.540 for Denmark vs 0.868 for the US (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicle...)