I did not downvote your comment but I certainly thought about it; between your contemptuous attitude toward people whose preferences differ from your own, and the way your ire over the scandal you're alluding to has blinded you to basic principles of economics, your remark added more noise than signal to the discussion.

> between your contemptuous attitude toward people whose preferences differ from your own

it would be great if everybody on HN felt the same, unfortunately this is quite commonplace. read threads on any EV post for instance.

Which part of my commentary is contemptuous? I pointed out why I think housing is expensive in the city, based on my experience voting against it.

Well since you didn't answer, I'll give you my thoughts for your benefit. Reading back, I think you're projecting. I welcome you to reflect on your behavior as it well meets your own criticisms. Here are examples:

>contemptuous attitude toward people whose preferences differ from your own

I appear to be welcoming the dialogue, and as I read back, you appear to be downvoting to ensure others won't see the dialogue (downvoting prevents people from replying). This is worse than name calling. It's literally contemptuous. And worse, you're accusing me of your crime.

>and the way your ire over the scandal

I hope you can cite where I did that, otherwise this also is contemptuous. How would you know if I'm angry? Is it because you hear my words in your head in an angry voice? There's a rule about that on HN.

>blinded you to basic principles of economics

Me and Congress? It sounds like you might be missing something that Congress and I are aware of. Can you admit that or would that require you to have a better attitude toward people with a differing preference from your own?

>Remark added more noise than signal to the discussion

Is that because it doesn't align with your world view? If that's not why I'll be glad to consider your defense to this point. I hope it will include some honest reason for not wanting to hear other people's opinion, so much so that you would downvote them for sharing it.

Overall, the irony in just this one comment is largely incriminating in regard to HN rules, and in regard to your own aspirations of yourself, I would assume, given the strict expectations you've set out for me.

This is entirely unrelated to the presence or lack of housing in urban areas.

If anything, a monopolistic landlord would like to expand and build more apartments, to extract a higher volume of above-market rent.

You appear to be paraphrasing me. Did you get a bunch of downvotes? Or was this not related to my comment?

You shouldn’t worry about downvotes on HN, many here are biased and are looking for reconfirmation of their beliefs rather than discourse.

I'd like to not worry about it, but it then prevents me from posting. The suggestion is to then stop posting and move on, which I fear allows the washing of dialogue and kindles political approaches that further the damage we're doing to society and the environment through corporate influence. If you, as a developer, feel good about your job helping corporations inflate rent prices, you're not going to look for another job. If you can clearly see that your employer is destroying society, you're very much likely not going to be willing to stick around. Maybe that's doesn't matter in most cases, but clearly big tech employees have influenced government contracts, etc.