Citing the ad hominem fallacy is pretty reductive; in dialectics there are plenty of occasions where the identity of an arguer is relevant to their argument. Th

Citing the ad hominem fallacy is pretty reductive; in dialectics there are plenty of occasions where the identity of an arguer is relevant to their argument. The internet's obsession with calling out this fallacy has sucked all the formal nuance out of its rhetorical usage. It also doesn't apply here, because the grandparent comment is not trying to refute PG's argument, it's mounting an entirely orthogonal one. So yes, I do agree it's not directly discussing the content. But that's also pretty characteristic of most HN threads. People on HN usually talk about the ideas they have which are evoked by the article. They do not as a rule engage in formal refutation or advocation of the article's core thesis, unless it's very technical in nature.