> That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”.

Funny how you mention this like you expect everyone to take for granted that Marxist=bad and worth "hiding" etc... whereas negative reactions are likely due more towards that internal judgement discrediting yourself, vs trying to "hide the Marxism."

You think you can discredit people by saying "they're Marxists!" and yet you think people today are uniquely bad snowflakes about views they don't like. You're proposing that people are more likely to cry thoughtcrime now than in the past, by inadvertently exposing how you've bought into this idea of how just invoking the name of some old philosopher is worth demonization and has been for DECADES in many western countries...

Specs and logs, motes and beams.

Which specific points from which specific Marx texts piss you off so much?

(It's also funny that you didn't actually link to any of the things you stated. I don't care about the things you brought up enough to go hunting for them myself to try do prove or disprove you, but... do you really think saying "I can't cite these simple facts without getting in trouble" *without even citing them, just asking us to believe you that they're easily cite-able, is gonna go over so convincingly?)