[bdcravens]

"Anyways, the people make the place -- and that includes kids."

Yes, a post that attacks kids is one that seems ripe to be critical about. (To say nothing about the implicit logic that their kids must also have been part of the problem, which goes against the general premise of the comment)

[staticman2]

Still wondering how you decided that particular message deserved this uncharitable response.

I assume you only read a few messages here, stopped and decided to attack that one.

Surely there were other messages here less deserving of charity?

[bdcravens]

Unfortunately I didn't have time to load them all into a spreadsheet, perform sentiment analysis, and pick a few based on a proprietary scoring algorithm. Like most people, I scroll HN when I have some free time, and respond to a few comments here and there that catch my eye. It seems to me that you're seeing a deeper meaning to what you see as an "attack".

If you would like to point out a few comments that are hurling blame at children, I'm more than happy to offer my opinion on those as well.

[staticman2]

If that comment was so bad I don't get why your initual complaint shifted from GP having "a subtext you're not saying out loud."

But this became when the discussion continued "hurling blame on children." Which is presented as text not subtext?

And something about implicit logic?

You sure put a lot of work into deciding why that of all comments deserved ire.

[lurking_swe]

kids with a poor home life often act out in class, or have other behavioral issues. It’s not their fault, and it’s not “fair”, but it IS a valid characterization.

I don’t think it’s controversial to say that kids with a great home life _probably_ have parents or grandparents that advocate for them and really try to get them placed into a good school district.

One could argue that getting your child into a good school district is an indirect way of surrounding them with like-minded kids and parental influence.

[bdcravens]

True, but look to the generalization presented in the original comment, where an overall trend was suggested. What makes one district filled with "good" parents and kids, whereas another was "bad"? To say nothing of the implication that the commenter was one of the good ones in the land of the bad.

My premise is that there's underlying causes unmentioned, but implied (like socioeconomic status). You can separate groups from membership, and to oversimplify, if you move something from one side of an equation to the other, with different results, what you moved was truly the constant, and what was left behind was the variable.

[lurking_swe]

I can see that - and i agree.

specifically, I think the original comment was in poor taste, and there are other factors outside of good home life like you said.