Who then, is worth of your time and/or respect?
What is your criteria? Fine by me to have your opinion. But at least be able to back it up with some substance.
But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely.
BUT
that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL.
You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings.
There's a clear difference between someone with a differing opinion and someone with a flawed thought process. I'm ok with a person telling me C++ is the most horrible thing since sliced bread despite my love for the language. I'm not ok with someone telling me allocation/deallocation in C++ is slower than C# because some article on the internet talked about allocation without going into the cost of deallocation.
One of those is understandable, the other is flat out wrong and if you choose to hold to that opinion then you're going to get dismissed as someone whose thought process is too faulty to trust.
And I have better things to do with my time.
To answer your question, I'm 36 years old. I've been online for a quite a while.
It took me a lot of years but I did eventually learn the lesson. On the internet people are never wrong and even citing sources gets you drug into yet another stupid conversation you don't want to be involved in.
I didn't invent the idea of "don't argue with stupid people, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".
But I wholeheartedly agree with it.
Couple of points...
1. You said before that you have had conversations with people about whether MRI had a GIL. In hindsight, do you agree it would've been preferable to link to a recent article about that GIL and then leave if it was wasn't sinking in?
2. I know I've made mistakes in the past. If I make a mistake in something I've said, does that exclude me from being able to learn from it? How will you know who is capable of learning without exploring their reasoning?
HN doesn't have a problem with listening to knowledgeable people and speaking the blunt truth. It does, however, have a problem with civility, and addressing that by asking people to be a bit nicer does not merit a sky-is-falling response that straightforward honesty is going to be chucked out the window. Frankly, given the personality type here, there is no slippery slope anywhere in sight.
So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you.
Gratuitous negativity is being rude, and not addressing the argument. Perhaps they are holding that opinion because it is the only one they have heard.
Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? Why would it be different online? Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board.
Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else. I always view it as "I do not have to persuade the author of anything, but perhaps someone reads my position and changes their mind" In which case, I would rather not come across as if I was about to burst a blood vessel, or incapable of pointing out flaws in an argument without resorting to "Your thought process is too faulty to trust".
I would dismiss them and go on with my life.
> Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot?
I'm curious as to why you think my statement about dismissing people implies "screaming" at them? When I dismiss someone I dismiss them. I have no interest in changing their mind or teaching them something. I am not here to teach the denizens of the world how to read up on subjects before speaking of them. I'm here for myself, no one else.
> Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board.
You don't get to tell me how much time I should spend on them before dismissing them ("walking away").
But see, I didn't specify either. Your statement about walking away implies you agree with me about dismissing them.
> Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else.
Why do I care?
I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect.
I understand that feeling. Life is short. But why take the time to respond at all, then, dismissively or otherwise?
"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." [1]
For me, sometimes a charitable interpretation of a "foolish" question or comment provides a framework to think about, or write about, what I see as the more salient point. Responding is optional, after all, so why not respond from the perspective of charitable discourse?
[1] Bruce Lee (!)