| > I’m curious to know why you thought it “sounded like this was a protest project ‘for the people’”? See the sibling reply by another user, which I think explains it perfectly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41179628 > It just seems a little strange when you then go on to say “strive to address… what was said, not what you imagine the other person said”. It’s not strange at all if you pay attention to the words. I did not mischaracterise the author or their goals, I explained what I expected and what I felt regarding what I experienced reading the post and then the website. In other words, I’m not attacking or criticising the author. I’m offering one data point, one description of an outside view which they’re free to ignore or think about. That’s it. Don’t take every reply as an explicit agreement or disagreement. Points can be nuanced, you just have to make a genuine effort to understand. Default to not assuming the other person is a complete dolt. Or don’t. It’s also anyone’s prerogative to be immediately reactive. That’s becoming ever more prevalent (online and offline), and in my view it’s a negative way to live. |
I'm not sure if your highly condescending and somewhat reactive tone is intended or not, perhaps it's satirical, but in case you are unaware, your tone is highly condescending. Saying things like "if you pay attention to the words" and "you just have to make a genuine effort to understand" and your didactic "default to this" comes across rather badly.