Oh, a non-binding, toothless, meaningless document issued by the UN. Seems legit.

The whole subthread is nasty, but this crosses into personal attack. Please don't do that here, regardless of how others are behaving.

Perhaps I let my emotions get the better of me. It's this empathy-devoid hyper-libertarianism that drives me nuts.

Still throwing labels around? Maybe they're still getting the better of you?

No, that's just my opinion of the characterisation of the comments I was replying to. You're welcome to disagree.

Please don't characterise opinions that differ from yours as problematic behaviour..

Telling someone that their "ending up as a quadriplegic" would be a "great display of poetic justice" is indefensible on HN. If the word "opinion" covers something like that then the word "opinion" is meaningless.

I'm perfectly fine with that, and totally agree. These are the parts I don't like:

> The whole subthread is nasty

> regardless of how others are behaving.

If you disagree with any of the opinions in the thread, please comment. Labeling them as 'nasty', or implying bad behavior without pointing it out is something that should be defended.

To clarify, "Please don't make personal attacks here, even if they deserve it" is not a neutral comment.

But that interpretation is entirely yours, it's not what dang was saying.

"regardless of how others are behaving"

So?

If the implicit assumption is something along the lines of "people I disapprove of deserve what's coming to them", then again, that interpretation is entirely yours.

How is that the same as "Please don't make personal attacks here, even if they deserve it"?

It's not at all required to mention if you disapprove of something when chastising someone for abuse. It undermines the point. Makes it sound like some unfortunate technicality or point of honour.

If you have a problem with the content of the thread, mention it, and defend that opinion. Otherwise, don't mention it. Flinging labels from above helps nothing.