Can you just communicate like a normal person instead of a redditer trying to win an argument? There's a growing body of snarky responses that are not literally denigrating, but tacitly assume you're such an idiot that you have to be reminded of things like "objects exist after they leave your sight". It wears me down. I'm tired of it.
Except they do make a good point here. As much as I understand and share the sentiment 'imiric expressed, the comment is sloppy with its implications, and GP is right to point out that the regulation can have both good and bad effects, be praised for the former and criticized for latter, all at the same time, without any one being incorrect.
Unfortunately, normal people do have to be reminded of the basics, because they seem statistically unable to process nuance in any argument they already have an opinion on. The whole idea of winning an argument is a kind of weird normie thing, a sportsball game with words, which is fine as entertainment, but problematic when it gets confused for reasoning about things.
> The whole idea of winning an argument is a kind of weird normie thing, a sportsball game with words, which is fine as entertainment, but problematic when it gets confused for reasoning about things.
Arguments as soldiers. Win at any cost, doesn't matter if what's said now contradicts what came before.
I didn't know about the idea until someone else explained it to me; talking about it with my much older brother, he had noticed it spontaneously.
It was a neutral statement. If you read it (ha!) in "reddit snarky style" that's on you. Maybe reduce your reddit time?
Maybe it would be time for you to reflect on how much you implied in that simple sentence. None of what you said I implied or desired to do. It was simply my comment and opinion and contribution to the comment.
It was not a substantive contribution. Hacker News guidelines [1] discourage sneers, shallow dismissals, and non-substantive snark, swipes, and cross examination.
I can’t stand this either, also “source?” thrown into the middle of discussions for information that’s broadly known or available within the context of what’s being discussed. This often just demonstrates the person arguing with you isn’t well read on the topic.
"Broadly known" information in such discussions is typically just everyone sharing the same hearsays they picked up over the years, without ever verifying any one of it themselves. If one finds a request for source annoying, it suggests the claim is actually one of those - broadly-known true and accurate information has plenty of definitive sources to back it up.
There's lots of dumb things "people in general" believe. The infamous list on Wikipedia[0] is just the tip of an iceberg. Everyone is vulnerable to this; if you aren't occasionally discovering and correcting such dumb "broadly known" things in your own beliefs, you aren't paying attention.
I mostly agree with your comment so I don't think we're talking about the same thing exactly. I'm refering to true and accurate information that should be the baseline requirement for entering a discussion or argument being requested and find that annoying.
