IMHO, if EarlG had provided an (optional) link to exactly what NYC_SKP said, there would have been a lot less room for speculation about what happened. The fact that EarlG just said he had to interpret a "clever" remark left room for people to wonder if his actions had been fair, if he interpreted something in the wrong way, or if political motivations were involved.

There have also been many lame attempts at claiming victim - especially feminist victim - status for Hillary. As someone who has gotten any many scuffles with the MRA gangs around here, I hope people know I have a low tolerance for misogyny - but I think that fight is undermined when people invoke fake victimhood to score points, and I've been pretty irked at how Hillary has not only appropriated feminism but some of her supporters have appropriated victim status along with it. That's why I was initially waiting to see the comment itself and not willing to to take a banning that had been "interpreted" at face value.

Well, now I've seen the remark. It was clearly vulgar and demeaning to woman. If I were the host of this site, I'd bring down the banhammer.

This is not a comment on NYC_SKP's character, history of service, medical condition, or anything else the DU hosts may decide to take into account in regard to him. I'm just saying that for this specific comment of NYC_SKP's, the ban was justified. Quick exercise: imagine him saying that to your mother or sister.

Sadly, the ambiguity around the reason has led to all this meta.