[SapphireSun]

You're downvoting me, and that's natural. I assume the bulk of vocal HNers are ancap libertarians (possibly some of you aligning with the Dark Enlightenment). However, you should take what I said more seriously. It represents a point of view with which you've perhaps had little contact, but is held by a significant (possibly even growing) portion of the population. It is diametrically opposed to many of the precepts you've been taught.

For instance, that process legitimizes outcomes rather than the other way around. That one is a bit weird, because the SV _thing_ is to conduct A/B testing and achieve outcomes at all costs. However, you also in your heart of hearts believe that there are institutions, such as schools, governments, and corporations that, solely on their own merits, elevate some people legitimately above others. You might also believe that hierarchy, coercion, and domination are legitimate elements of society when expressed in particular forms such as corporate officers, investors, managers, take-it-or-leave-it contracts, privatization, and denial of aid.

Here's a quick primer: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-difference-betwee...

[austenallred]

The reason you’re getting downvoted has less to do with your argument and more to do with your tone.

The strawman doesn’t help either.

[coolaliasbro]

Can you clarify the issue with parent's tone? I only read a set of rhetorical questions that made a slight appeal to emotion, which seems appropriate considering that the future of peoples' livelihoods are being discussed.

[austenallred]

I reread it and didn't sense that tone at all. I wonder if it's possible the parent edited, because it seemed incredibly sarcastic earlier.

[SapphireSun]

I don't recall. I think I did add a sentence or two, but I don't think I changed it enough to change your read of tone.

[Boothroid]

Raising the idea that immigration might have negative effects is pretty much taboo here on HN.