For context, here is my entire comment: > This thread of discussion isn't central to the idea of predictive debugging. In the spirit of my tiny influence on cu

For context, here is my entire comment: > This thread of discussion isn't central to the idea of predictive debugging. In the spirit of my tiny influence on curating the most useful discussion, I'm going to help move it down the page. I'm not commenting one way or the other on the particular claims. (P.S. Having only one ranking mechanism inevitably leads to the conflation of user intentions. There are better ways out there; for example, I recommend the side-walking crustacean forum.) I can't control your interpretation, but I can assure you I didn't intend to insult anyone. Not all criticisms are putdowns. Think of my comment this way: it was an explanation of my downvote, which gives the commenter some feedback. Most downvotes don't give feedback. Per the golden rule, I prefer constructive criticism, so I gave it. Your interpretation (claiming that my comment was a putdown) was uncharitable. Your choice when quoting me was selective and did not give the whole context. No one acts in isolation. We are part of the patterns of many cultures. I regret that many people, including myself, have a tendency to rapidly escalate a situation. [1] They often jump from a valid feeling of discomfort to an accusation of intended harm. This is unwise, unfair, and destructive. We need to be able to criticize ideas without someone taking personal affront. You don't seem to acknowledge that I am aiming for a higher principle: useful, on-topic discussion. You don't have to agree with the principle to acknowledge that is the motivator of my comment. I'm criticizing your ideas. I'm hopeful if we met in person we could have an amicable conversation. If you like, we can do a video call. I'm serious. These kinds of misunderstandings are small but damaging to the fabric of what we have here. [1] I'm rather liberal when it comes to policy solutions. I say this for people that are swayed by tribalism: in many ways, I'm metaphorically 'on the same team' as people that speak up for the less fortunate. Standing up for civil rights and equality under the law is laudable. But this is quite different from uncharitably assuming bad intentions and "calling out" people. The latter undermines the core principles of civil discussion and probabilistic reasoning. In my view, civility and evidence work together quite well. Here's how: once you recognize the limits of your ability to divine someone else's intentions, particularly with only written text, it becomes illogical to accuse them of malice.