[kbenson]

There are communities where insulting the author of a comment is an acceptable way to make an author think critically about their statement, but this is not one of them. That your comment consisted entirely of an insult and your point needed to be assumed from the subtext points towards it not being very conducive for discussion itself. That you chose to address a comment that you think lowered the quality of discussion with a comment that was even worse in that respect is unfortunate. Your goal was good, your methods were not.

[devishard]

Hacker News, where saying it nicely is valued more than saying anything useful.

[kbenson]

Where discussion is prioritized over personal expression. It's not just about what you say, but about how you say it, because it doesn't matter how insightful you are if nobody understands you. It's not about being nice for niceness sake, it's about emphasizing methods of communication that work.

[devishard]

That depends very much on what you consider "working". I don't see any value whatsoever in what bronz was communicating, and any discussion that starts from that is going to be equally vapid. That's not "working" to me.

It's about what you say AND how you say it.

[kbenson]

> I don't see any value whatsoever in what bronz was communicating, and any discussion that starts from that is going to be equally vapid.

That's fine. What I'm referring to doesn't actually have to yield further discussion. Some people will take belittlement, accept it as an indication they should have thought through their position better (if that was indeed the cause). Others will immediately become defensive and start responding to something that doesn't really need a response. Sometimes it just depends on the mood of the person. Not using insults (or at least making them clearly supplemental to the supported point) helps avoid this.

Insults are appeals to emotion. Emotion is exactly what you don't want when you are trying to avoid useless discussion. I understand the pull, and I'm sure I fall into the trap myself from time to time. Sometimes someone says something that seems divorced from reality, and you find the premise so absurd that you find it hard to address it seriously. It feels good to strongly call out the absurdity for what it is, and people who agree enjoy seeing it, but ultimately it makes it more about you than the point. For example, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of your original comment. I just think it's slightly self defeating when the discussion is between many people in a group setting, because it often yields more useless comments as people dig in on their sides.

> It's about what you say AND how you say it.

That's the exact point I was trying to make in the prior comment.