4 ms·
I meant to say that I disagree completely with the specific part that I quoted above. That those comments are upvoted. And I explain my view right after to show
by soneca 5y ago
I meant to say that I disagree completely with the specific part that I quoted above. That those comments are upvoted. And I explain my view right after to show that I have a diametrically opposite view on that affirmation. And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact, for which we don’t have the data to settle the debate, so it’s up for debate, and my interpretation is different.
Later I do go on to speculate a reason why the author had such perspective. Which is just speculation on my part (that’s why I used “It seems to me”). I might be wrong in my speculation, but I don’t this is “bad faith”.
- tsuujin 5y agoI don’t want to get drawn into a negativity thing here, but I think this is important: > And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact You’re describing an opinion here. Your interpretation is your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to it and I think discussion is healthy, but I also think it’s dangerous to conflate your opinion (interpretation) of a fact as the fact itself.
- soneca 5y agoI did a bad job writing it, but I am not conflating fact and opinion, I explicitly said that I could be wrong, and that we have no way to know who is wrong. I should have worded it better to mean that the quoted part is not “non-debateable” as the GP stated. I wanted to express that when the author says ”HN is toxic for me” it might be an “non-debateable opinion”, but when they say (paraphrasing) ”Comments that point out what is wrong about something without empathy are upvoted on HN” I think that’s a totally debateable opinion. And I have an opposing view.