3 ms·
"Foul language" is a very rough measure. The parent's thought could have been communicated with less sarcasm ("Sad that ... ?") and bitterness ("doesn't deserve
by happytoexplain 4y ago
"Foul language" is a very rough measure. The parent's thought could have been communicated with less sarcasm ("Sad that ... ?") and bitterness ("doesn't deserve").
Edit: Further, some topics, no matter how carefully broached, are just a bad value proposition. They may have a bad ratio between their intrinsic value (importance, relevance, etc) and how likely they are to spawn a low-quality thread (and how low that quality is likely to be).
- henryfjordan 4y agoSo OP was out of line by calling it "sad" but to call his opinions "flamewar tangents" is totally different? Edit to match yours: If this convo is so fraught, Dang should delete the whole thread.
- fezfight 4y agoThanks, by the way.
- pvg 4y agoBoth 'opinions' or 'facts' can easily be flamewar tangents - the form and context count for a lot. There's lots of moderator commentary on this.
- happytoexplain 4y agoIndeed - the implication that a statement merely containing anything factual or backed by evidence makes the whole thing uncriticizable ("but it's true") is maybe the most common fallacy made in defense of provocative statements.
- dang 4y ago"Delete the whole" is not how threads work on HN. The way that threads work on HN, assuming that they're on topic, is that people should post intellectually curious comments and avoid posting unsubstantive or predictable ones.