Mostly it's meant as a reminder to anyone reading the parent comment to think critically instead of just taking the claims at face value, as I often tend to forget to do that myself.
I suppose that's a valid interpretation, but again, the purpose of the phrasing is to (slightly, help) change the status quo, so most of us are not batting an eye if it doesn't 100% reflect the status quo; the commenter may or may not have meant to collude 'most' with the non-typical, but it literally makes no difference.
> You make it sound like someone owes you a response.
I didn't interpret the comment that way.
BTW, I'm not saying your interpretation is "not true" or "crazy" or anything like that. I just think it is better to keep this kind of (bad faith) interpretation private. I think it is useful to remember this HN guideline "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." [1]
The benefit, which is not spelled out there, is that if more of us do this, there will be fewer amplifications / chain-reactions of misinterpretations. This results in a more useful discussion.
The meaning is perfectly clear from the context of my comment. The comment presupposes a judgement for what is probably the most controversial question in the entire debate.
Sure! and sorry, this is entirely meta and more critique than criticism, so feel free to ignore.
Your comments are, I have noticed, often terse but always very exacting. It is different to most other comments I read on this site, where the meaning is usually clearer than the language. With yours I find it is often the reverse. It seems that you mean only what you say, rather than saying only approximately what you mean, I guess (to butcher the phrase).
Anyway, this comment in particular was, I think, a good example and maybe worth drawing attention to.. as I often I find myself, (and others) 'reading in' a point of view not actually contained within your comment (perhaps implied, perhaps not). And I think maybe, the reason the comment is difficult to parse (conceptually) is it doesn't inscribe a morality or even ownership (which I believe the other commenter was responding to), even later where you make the point of view more explicit. And I can read literally the same words as implying a neutral, pro or anti stance, and the comment also still makes sense. It is unusual, and I often am left (on second read) with the sense maybe I really don't know your point of view at the end, but that also perhaps this doesn't always matter as once I discard the need for understanding any intended or implied meaning, I see what you definitely are saying is very clear.
Anyway, yes, way overthinking it, but I do enjoy reading your takes for this precise reason, though I just have to remind myself to read them carefully.
FWIW, I didn't read the the comment this way, and it doesn't seem like "the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says".
From the HN guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
that's a very good point. something to consider when writing a comment. especially in a forum like this where it is difficult to interpret the intent of a message, or the attitude of the writer. i certainly hope that my comments aren't seen as being judgemental, but i can't be sure.
That is your interpretation of the original comment, not even close to a direct quote (and I'm sure many would take it as a gross distortion of what was actually said).
Obviously you and I interpreted the original comment very differently.
The implication is that one needs to contribute a detailed response to any statement, no matter how shallow and foolish, or else accept it to the discussion as though it had some validity.
reply