Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoolGuySteve | Hacker News Reader

You know, when it comes to "Being kind" on hnews, I have the least patience for these pedantic/off-topic replies that completely distract from the central thesis of the parent post. In this case, the vegan stuff was an example and you know it, but felt it appropriate to waste our time with your reply anyways.

I find these kinds of posts so, so, so tiring. The only saving grace is that the collapse thread button is so useful.

View on HN

The calling out of the example of being bad was perfectly topical. tomp is espousing advice that is nominally supposed to imply that s/he's risen above petty emotional investment in arguments, when in fact it's clear s/he's making misleading and inflammatory statements that are going to be directly insulting to a certain audience. Not only should s/he moderate their opinions, but s/he should reflect on their substance and accuracy. "My understanding is that veganism can lead to a B12 deficiency which is unhealthy" would be much better.

I’m happy to discuss, and I even indicated as much (a.k.a. there’s nuance). But people would rather play emotional games and feign being offended. Just look of what I’m being accused - wanting to win, misleadig, ego investment, trying to offend, being an asshole, ... I think the replies here perfectly demonstrate my point, ironically.

You are absolutely being misleading. The statement "Veganism is unhealthy" is objectively wrong in the sense that it implies that it cannot be done healthily. Practically any diet or activity in general is unhealthy if proper precautions are not taken. In the case of veganism, the proper precaution happens to be B12 supplementation. You clearly know this as indicated by your disclaimer about 'nuance'. You are making an equivalent statement to me saying "You are making asshole comments (but there is some nuance)" - there is an element of truth to the statement, but it is misleading and first and foremost designed to create an emotional reaction.

Edit: My last point is clearly demonstrated if the immediate downvote I received after posting this was from you.

You can't downvote replies to your own comments.

> The statement "Veganism is unhealthy" is objectively wrong

The statement "vaccination is safe" is also objectively wrong (it's a medical procedure therefore it carries risk; the more correct statement is "vaccination is risky, but the tradeoffs are extremely worth it"), but saying it wouldn't "create an emotional reaction" in most people (except in anti-vaxxers, which AFAIK are a huge minority, and pretty much everyone would agree that they are extremely ego-invested in their opinion) (saying that it's wrong, however, might).

>You can't downvote replies to your own comments.

TIL.

Anyway, my aim isn't to debate you on specific subjects like veganism or vaccines. Just be aware that stating things in a blunt, opinionated way can have undesirable effects on your communications, regardless of your intentions.

Eh, the upstream comment used bogus incendiary flamebait as an "example" so yes, people are going to reply to it. They might as well have gone with "the earth is flat". It's a show-stopper that challenges the veracity of the rest of their post. They aren't being "right but rude" when they are wrong about such a basic statement.

For example, B12 is in meat because animals are supplemented with it, like cobalt added to their feed. Humans can supplement directly.

It's like thinking you have to drink vitamin D fortified milk or iodine fortified salt to get vitamin D and iodine, and then asserting people who don't consume either must be unhealthy.

> I have the least patience for these pedantic/off-topic replies that completely distract from the central thesis of the parent post.

like your post?

There are far more fictional or at least many times less controversial examples to made, the OP "dug his grave" them self.

GP's larger point is fair enough. But it would be telling, and germane to this discussion, if it turned out that many of their experiences were due to the fact that remarks they consider to be just "statements of fact" are more contentious than they realize.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com