This, btw, is why we have e-cigarette bans. The fact that the generally high-IQ, paid-to-think-about-subtle-categorization community of software developers needs to be inoculated against the "I Heard SHA-1 Was Bad Now" meme, should serve as a reminder for why most things should not be managed by democracy.
(Yeah, I know this will be read as a plea for monarchy and downvoted. It simply proves my point: people are WAY too subject to errors in the classes (1) "I hate him because he said something 'bad' about something 'good'." and (2) "I hate him because he said something 'good' about something The Tribe now knows is 'bad.')
The HN guidelines specifically ask not to express the expectation of downvotes. You may be downvoted purely for ignoring the guidelines, regardless of the rest of your comment.
Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.
A generally reasonable guideline, but in this case, I am actually criticizing the tribalism that makes people rise to that bait.
It similarly leads to the discussion of how "I can't believe Linus is trying to defend SHA-1 when The Tribe already knows it is cryptographically 'bad'."
If you are taking the view that you're expecting downvotes to prove the point that people who are trying to uphold community standards are doing so blindly or ignorantly, you'll very likely think you're proven correct when you do receive downvotes. Can you blame them? You're explicitly flaunting the guidelines they choose to abide by while telling them they're wrong to do so in your special case.
"My belief (which you are free to disagree with)". However, you are not free to express such disagreement or even discuss it. Expressing ideas with which the "right people" disagree is grounds for scorched-earth attacks on every aspect of your life until you can be brought to heel.
(I find slavery and support for such reprehensible. Such ideas should be openly confronted and countered directly by expressing superior ideas. For example, the idea that all human beings have inherent value and should not be subject to the use of force inherent in slavery.)
(While I'm criticizing ideas, I'll criticize a couple more: 1. It is deceptive to imply there is was some threat to the safety of attendees. (The linguistic sleight of hand of "physical and emotional safety" is the giveaway. It combines and attempts to equate two unlike things.)
2. The repeated references to "solidarity" are a dressed up form of tribalism, placing loyalty to "us" or "our team" over clear thinking. (It's the left's equivalent to how some on the right use "patriotism".))
The article in question mentions agreeing to willing slavery, i.e. without the use of force:
> Once we get this far, we are almost all the way to Carlyle on slavery. We have not agreed that a man can be born a slave, but we agree that he can sell himself into slavery. That is: he can sign a contract with a master in which the slave agrees unconditionally to obey and work for the master, and the master agrees unconditionally to protect and support the slave.
(Yeah, I know this will be read as a plea for monarchy and downvoted. It simply proves my point: people are WAY too subject to errors in the classes (1) "I hate him because he said something 'bad' about something 'good'." and (2) "I hate him because he said something 'good' about something The Tribe now knows is 'bad.')