3 ms·
Noted, I apologize. But I don't believe there was any name-calling, as I attempted to clarify in another comment: the "anti-intellectualist" label was intended
by epgui 4y ago
Noted, I apologize.
But I don't believe there was any name-calling, as I attempted to clarify in another comment: the "anti-intellectualist" label was intended to refer to the idea expressed in the article, not to the person who wrote it. (And even in the case where the label were attached to a person, it's not really an insult: I mean, it's definitely not a compliment, but to be clear, it says absolutely nothing of the person's intelligence, and rather speaks to their attitude towards "the pursuit of knowledge" in the abstract.)
I recognize that my intended meaning was not as clear as it should have been in the root comment, but I hope I have clarified this anywhere else. This was careless phrasing, but there was no ill intent.
- dang 4y agoI'm sure there was no ill intent! but "this is anti-intellectualist drivel" is name calling in the sense that the HN guidelines use the word; it doesn't have to be personal to qualify: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Thanks for the nice reply in any case.