[ethbr1]

^ Honestly, the most useful approach.

I can't change other people, but I can change myself.

Sometimes, it is what it is. But often I can find a way to more effectively say what I was trying.

Exhibit A: avoiding the dangling ad hom after an otherwise solid point. Seductive but unproductive.

[ivewonyoung]

I just gave a couple of examples in the other comment in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43710568

Zero ad hominem or anything else.

And I see this all the time. Not to mention only one "side" is subject to this suppression so it's no surprise that they prefer to(or are forced by the site mechanics to) disengage from commenting.

If sourced verifiable facts stated in a neutral way are punished, what chance do opinions or personal takes have? It's a textbook example of an echo chamber.

[shkkmo]

The comments with sources doesn't appear to be downvoted. Your comment has no sources and the tone feels a little combative so I'm not surprised it picked up a couple of downvotes given the topic. In general, many of your comments have a slight bitter, combative air to them that probably hampers your communication effectiveness.

Anything Musk related on here has always been prone to less constructive conversation, even before he became a part of the partisan political circus.

[ivewonyoung]

>The comments with sources doesn't appear to be downvoted

It was downvoted for a while.

> In general, many of your comments have a slight bitter, combative air to them that probably hampers your communication effectiveness

Comments that are much more bitter and combative than mine and without sources are upvoted all the time, because they fuel a certain political narrative.