[zamadatix]

I don't think I've met many pairs of people I could ask "on a scale of 1 to 10, how biased/loaded do you think ${example} is" and get told the same exact number by both for the majority of the examples given.

Now apply that to the n people reading a given post or comment! If those commenters try to communicate on what they think is "fair game" for the given conversation, then two comments deep in and you might already be at a 7 when the author thought they were at a 3. In more extreme cases, two people could misunderstand each other through text and simply go from a 1 to a 7 in a single comment, spending the rest of the time shooting back loaded replies at each other instead of thinking about the topic together.

It's a very human reaction we all tend towards, even when we set out our intents to do the "always reply with..." mindset instead of a tit-for-tat one. That's why I always start with the ideal approach - I can count on myself to help foul it up :D.

[CrimsonCape]

This article felt like a classic example of "I just discovered this cool technology that seems to have massive potential! While massively blind and naive to the implications of what I think!" As others point out, the OP will learn in 5 years why people do what they do and not what OP thinks should be.

So I find myself being more sympathetic and SMH than antagonistic..