[dang]

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. If you want to make a nuanced point about personal responsibility, ok, but turning it into a big binary polarity and then blaring condemnatory, dismissive rhetoric at the pole you disapprove of is no way to do this.

You say you know it is harsh—that's already a reason not to do it here. Maybe "harsh" can do some good when there's already a strong relational connection with the other person. (Emphasis on maybe, because people who take harsh stances generally are paying more attention to their own ideas than to the person they're commenting on—but no doubt it does happen sometimes.) Here, however, you're broadcasting to thousands of people over the internet, with zero relational connection. In such a context, it's merely provocative and destructive, and one could even say selfish.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[hedberg10]

> A good critical comment teaches us something.

I feel as if I did that. Maybe my writing comes across way differently, maybe my comments are not as direct as they could be - but if that is already too upsetting for this crowd, you will never get any actual critical comments. You will never arrive at any traction, at any truth. Too bad, I expected more here. My error.

Case in point:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says

Nobody replying to me did that. Amazing.

[dang]

> I feel as if I did that.

I'm sorry - I don't mean to pile on! - but I don't think you did that. The comment didn't include interesting specific information; it was a moral hectoring. Those do not come across well on the internet.

> Nobody replying to me did that. Amazing.

Not amazing—quite predictable, given the provocation. In cases like this, the root comment bears the most responsibility. Here are some further explanations of what I mean by this, in case you or anyone want more:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953253

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28932445

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27162386 (<-- long discussion with a user about a similar thing)

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[Igelau]

> > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says

> Nobody replying to me did that. Amazing.

You worded everything in absolutes. If you ask people to take the strongest interpretation of that, you're asking them to just concede that you're right.

I think you actually seem to get it that there's something dangerous about identifying with the problem (e.g. I am depressed) but you're jumping to conclusions about agency from there. No one who replied wanted to make that leap, nor did you offer any compelling reason to do so.