Dang is not without his biases. He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it. And yes, I know his standard response of claiming whatever bias seen in him merely reflects your own bias... that is another of dang's biases.
My personal "anecdote is not data" has been that I was censured for arguing that opposing covid safety measures shows how American conservatism is post-truth, and delta's hospitalization rates showed the cost of that attitude. Repeatedly getting in arguments on this subject got me censored. It's his site, it's his prerogative.
However, I see similar commentary of "anybody who supports inclusive language is just giving stupid prizes to weenies" or something like that. This, by contrast, is fine.
It may be just that dang disagreed with my tone, or never saw the latter, or just thinks this is "my bias", or simply the large number of comments posted (which is kind of a natural effect of being heavily opposed -- agreement with the consensus on this site is intrinsically quieter than disagreement). I don't know.
Either way, their site, their prerogative. Either way, I'm trying not to get into politics on this site anymore.
> He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it.
I thought you were gonna say when Americans are the ones doing it. (I think you mean the opposite, when non-Americans are flaming the US - let me know if I misunderstood you.)
I see far more toxicity allowed about China and (recently) Russia than about the US. I've even seen misinformation allowed in the titles of posts (which are usually heavily moderated to remove even hyperbole, much less misinformation), when the target is Russia.
This only reinforces your "Dang is not without his biases" point though. As a (presumed) political leftie, he's probably more inclined than the average US-ian to allow self-criticism of the US. But as an American in the first place, he's inevitably imbibed some of the caricature of places like China and Russia, and likely doesn't even see the toxic flaming of them for what it is. You see the first bias as the one stands out, while for me the latter is the one that seems visible and obvious.
