[theoh]

"wtf is wrong with hn"

One thing that's wrong with HN is that perceived "negativity" often gets condemned in exactly the way you have done here.

It seems as if a significant number of HN readers have never really participated in a spirited discussion with arguments made from multiple different perspectives. Maybe any kind of apparent conflict scares them, maybe they project their own aggression onto a comment that seems to go against the grain of the discussion. It will never change.

[axiometry]

There are many easy ways to rephrase OP's comment into one that isn't so direct and denigrating. The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.

[posterboy]

What's the problem, too much empathy? I mean, if the opposite of empathy is appathy, then I don't see that in the OP.

[fmoralesc]

The opposite of empathy is antipathy.

[andredz]

The opposite of antipathy is sympathy.

[andrepd]

"Direct", yes. "Denigrating", how?? I'm genuinely asking so I can fix that in the future, unless you think criticising is offending.

>The only thing "apparent" here is that OP has trouble with empathy.

Again, I can do without the online pretend-therapy. Amazing how perceptive some people are that they deduce the most profound things from a dozen lines of text!

[hyperpallium]

I wanted to say I found your original comment critical, but not offensive. But I found the reply made to you offensive, because personal and aggressive. Which I think is how you see it too.

However, it seems several people took the side of the replier.

So I reviewed your original comment, and I think I've found the problem: it exaggerated and labelled, e.g. droning, talk talk talk, talking about nothing, neverending paragraphs.

Many of these aren't literally true ("nothing", "neverending"). Others are emotionally loaded ("drone"). It's probably almost always better to speak directly, without exaggeration or emotion... but this is particularly important when criticizing.

I didn't notice these at first because I tend to filter out decoration, and just hear the content (i.e the literal meaning) - though this is much easier to do when I'm not personally involved!

I think, "to be blunt", to speak plainly, to get to the point, really mean to be factual and accurate - without emotional language, exaggeration or labeling.

Anyway, I notice dang asked to not continue this thread, but I was troubled by it, and reviewing it helped me - maybe it will help you too.

[mlevental]

Maybe you should take a hint huh? If many people are telling you something about yourself (a subject you're inexorably biased on) you think maybe you should reconsider your position?