Can you tell me more about downward-spiraling, and how this relates to the guidelines?
The guy in the article seems to be implying that pedestrians don't have the right to be in the road. I think it's pretty OK to be dismissive of that.
The guy in the article seems to be implying that pedestrians don't have the right to be in the road. I think it's pretty OK to be dismissive of that.
Point #2 is more subtle and more important. You picked an uncharitable interpretation in order to get snippy at it. That's a self-referential activity, not the thoughtful engagement we're looking for. This is why the site guidelines say:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
That applies to articles and quotes as much as to fellow commenters. If people just rail against weak versions of what others say, the only ones interested in reading it will be others in the same mood. Everyone else will get bored and leave, which in the long (or maybe not so long) run amounts to the death of this community. That's a downward spiral we really don't want, so please make an effort not to do that.
In short, please follow the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html