> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The OP's comment may be poorly worded, but in the context of current events your contributions to this discussion show virtually no sign of attempting to make good faith arguments.
>>glitch+(OP)
I am advocating for data and accountability over agreement and hysteria. It appears, to me, you are equating my lack of immediate agreement to bad faith.
>>austin+66
Agreement is not the goal of discussions or debate. Perhaps if you articulated your advocacy for data and accountability with a little more substance earlier on we would be enjoying a more productive debate about the issue.
>>glitch+vu
My experience with social media is that the goal is purely social reinforcement, not discussion. Typically HN is better than that but purely political threads like this with absolutely no technology or business focus tend to draw out people not primarily focused on discussion. That is why I deleted my Reddit account. Here is an example from this thread where a commenter, in their own words, is distressed only that I don’t just agree: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617015