Oh I try so hard to not go meta, but this complaint is too much. I was favourably inclined to your original post ("I noticed an uptick..."), and disfavourably

Oh I try so hard to not go meta, but this complaint is too much. I was favourably inclined to your original post ("I noticed an uptick..."), and disfavourably inclined against coldtea's ("violently politically correct"; anyone who says "politically correct" gets dismissal from me!). But everything you said after that was somewhere in the set {unproductive, confrontationally unproductive, paranoid}. You made an observation about patterns, and proposed an explanation. He proposed an alternate explanation for the same observation. They're equally epistemologically privileged, and your nonsense about "first-order observations" doesn't hold water. His reply added to the conversation (marginally... ugh). Your "incorrect" added zero to the conversation, it was simple static, so it deserves downvotes. I didn't bother to downvote it -- as I usually don't -- but I understand why other people did. You then complained about the downvotes. Obvious straightforward infraction of site guidelines, and now you retroactively deserve even more downvotes. And then you went on a paranoid screed about him attacking you personally. It becomes clear that YOU were talking about why YOU hellbanned people (I guess?), and thus you interpret coldtea's alternate theory as being about YOU, but no reasonable person reading the original comments would have read either of those posts that way. The only problem here is you. Oh, and one more thing: just as hellbanning isn't really psychopathy, neither is uttering childish threats on the internet, even if I happen to agree with you that the latter is a more serious offense. So when you use "psychopaths" metaphorically, it licenses people who respond to you to use the same metaphor. When you start the hyperbole, you should put up with its continuance.