[bumby]

You’re missing the even broader context. The article is explicitly discussing “happiness” and why the author isn’t happy despite being “successful” by traditional measures.

Further, some of the issue is with the imprecise definition of “happy”. The modern use of the term can be used interchangeably. What causes someone to be hedonically happy may make them eudaimonically unhappy. So IMO it’s completely warranted to have further discussion to either define the definition or bring into question if someone is chasing the right goal for them. Saying what is tantamount to “I’m not willing to discuss this” facilitates none of that.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

It's exactly that imprecision that means the person making the statement gets to tell you what it means for them, and they're not unreasonable for being very explicit in telling you that you will not convince them that their definition is more appropriate.

Furthermore,

on a purely mechanical level, what you're doing here is trying to escalate scope specifically so you don't have to give the point. Just give the point.

[bumby]

Everything I've said is pretty clearly within the scope of the featured article or the HN guidelines. You seem to be conflating what I'm saying with something that's more argumentative.

What I'm not saying: The OP is wrong about how they go about defining happiness or what they do to achieve that goal.

What I am saying: They are misusing HN if they are so close-minded as to be unwilling to engage in discussion, or swayed by counter-arguments.

It's a red flag when somebody says they can't be convinced, particularly on a subjective topic.

Obviously, a subjective measure like happiness is up to the individual to define. I'm not disagreeing with that and I don't think any of my posts give that impression unless someone is already using a hard-focused lens to read too much into them. My point was pretty clearly stated multiple times but it seems people are primed to argue. The HN guidelines clearly state one of the intents of the forum is to foster curious conversation. If somebody makes a post that "they can't be convinced" they are no longer interested in a discussion and they are therefore misusing HN. I would make the same case if they were claiming "Red is best color and I can't be convinced otherwise." In that case, maybe HN isn't the place for you on this topic. If you want to just plug your ears and talk at someone, there's plenty of places on the internet to do that. It would be akin to someone saying "This classroom was built for learning" and I show up with my arms crossed and say I refuse to learn. Well, ok, nobody is saying you can't take that stance. But they can say you're misusing the forum provided.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

One has to wonder if I've been going back and forth with ChatGPT.

People talk about having a feeling of uncanny valley when reading some of the things ChatGPT says and I must say, this must be what it feels like.

And if you're not open to the possibility that I'm speaking with ChatGPT it's because you're misusing HN.

[bumby]

Ha, the same thought crossed my mind as I was reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34420721. In fact, one of the top comments talks about the uncanny valley-ness of ChatGPT.

I guess the follow up question is: what guideline do you think I'm violating?

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

It's obvious you have tendencies that make it difficult for you to understand, and therefore effectively communicate, with others. The result is you cannot understand why someone would consider the expression of something as deeply fundamental as their own happiness with themselves as more important than some "guidelines" on a forum ran by people who are not themselves.

That you rely so heavily on the guidelines is telling, it's what often happens when persons don't understand the underlying principles.

Your initial post came from a place of not understanding. As we've interacted that's become more and more clear to me. I see no need to belabor this any longer.