Just FYI, you can click their name and view their profile to see how old the account is.
I can't speak to the "not addressed to you" portion of the GP's post, because I do believe than HN benefits from its open discussion format, that allows for both threaded discussion and open commenting. But, I would venture to say that it's quite deceitful, i.e. an "aggressive demand", to drop in what you apparently know (c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354198) will be an analogy (this one here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353366) that inspires "negative emotions" without providing any supporting arguments or information in the same post.
Rather than starting from a point that (you do seem to know) will be inflammatory, why not start from claims directly related to the topic at hand, and work your way up to the point where the logic of making the analogy is immaculately clear? In this thread, you start with a 'jump' (straight to the civil rights movement), and then trickle out the details in children comments [1,2,3,5] as to why your point is relevant, and why people should ignore their emotional responses [4,5] like you do. Inducing emotional responses in others with one's writing is inevitable -- do you actually want to convince people of why your point holds water (using something like the strategy I propose), or do you only want to evoke anger and get people turning away in a huff (what you've done in this thread)?
> In this thread, you start with a 'jump' (straight to the civil rights movement), and then trickle out the details in children comments [1,2,3,5] as to why your point is relevant,
It should be very clear from the original post why the point is relevant. Some people might need some extra explaining, but they try their best to need it.
The depths to which this thread has reached suggests that the point's relevance (or perhaps more appropriately, "appropriateness") is not as clear as you seem to think.
Your slight towards other posters aside, what is easier to change? The HN-commentariat at large ("they try their best to need it")? Or, each of us as individuals, trying to compose our arguments and points in a widely receivable, understandable, and relatable way? (That is, what I am trying to encourage above.)
...without providing any supporting arguments or information in the same post.
Nothing in the comments you linked to is, textually speaking, a demand. Would you describe my comment as an "aggressive demand" if I were simply expressing ideas that are completely conventional?
work your way up to the point where the logic of making the analogy is immaculately clear?
Assuming I were expressing conventional ideas, would it be necessary for me to address every possible counterpoint in the original comment to avoid making an "aggressive demand"?
Inducing emotional responses in others with one's writing is inevitable -- do you actually want to convince people of why your point holds water (using something like the strategy I propose), or do you only want to evoke anger and get people turning away in a huff (what you've done in this thread)?
Paul Graham wrote a great essay a while back called "how to disagree". Levels 0-2 (name calling, ad hominem and responding to tone, respectively) are quite common in the broader world. As Trump vs Crooked Hillary demonstrates, level 0 is quite effective at persuading the masses. http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
On HN, I generally make the good faith assumption that we can discuss things at a higher level (e.g. 4 or higher). This thread definitely demonstrates that as a belief about the world, this is probably not super accurate.
Is it your genuine belief that if I phrased my comment differently, I would have avoided the level 0-2 reactions to it? How would you have phrased it?
I can't speak to the "not addressed to you" portion of the GP's post, because I do believe than HN benefits from its open discussion format, that allows for both threaded discussion and open commenting. But, I would venture to say that it's quite deceitful, i.e. an "aggressive demand", to drop in what you apparently know (c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354198) will be an analogy (this one here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353366) that inspires "negative emotions" without providing any supporting arguments or information in the same post.
Rather than starting from a point that (you do seem to know) will be inflammatory, why not start from claims directly related to the topic at hand, and work your way up to the point where the logic of making the analogy is immaculately clear? In this thread, you start with a 'jump' (straight to the civil rights movement), and then trickle out the details in children comments [1,2,3,5] as to why your point is relevant, and why people should ignore their emotional responses [4,5] like you do. Inducing emotional responses in others with one's writing is inevitable -- do you actually want to convince people of why your point holds water (using something like the strategy I propose), or do you only want to evoke anger and get people turning away in a huff (what you've done in this thread)?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354048
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353661
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354108
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354198
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13357684