This seems exceptionally straightforward to me, so I'll make it as un-political as I can: There are lifetimes of new content available for your consumption every single day.

Maybe it's not all worthwhile. Maybe not 1% of it is. It doesn't matter-- you'll never get to see an infinitesimal fraction of it, even just the good, true, accurate stuff.

So how do you decide what to pay attention to with your mortal lifespan? Just as a first pass, I like to use filters like "is this notably excellent" or "does this make me want to throw up at all, even just a little".

Then if it's not excellent, or if the speaker doesn't agree with my politics, or especially both, I don't feel any remorse whatsoever about skipping it.

This isn't about shutting myself off. I think it's very important to expose myself to perspectives that differ from my own, to broaden my own frame of reference. I also think that feces play a critically important role in my metabolism, but that doesn't mean I'm excited to open a box of donuts and discover a frosted turd.

And I'll accept exactly 0 concern trolling around my publicly saying, just, hey... look in the box.

If it's a turd in there, you don't still have to eat it.

I'm not commenting on everything, just the things I think are the most important. I can't read your mind, but in your own words you "encourage folks not to watch that video at least without..."

Just my impression, but it appears to me that you aren't even trying to contribute to the actual topics of discussion in any meaningful way.

Trying really hard not to get back on snark here, but... did you literally just stop reading there? Just finish my sentence: I "encourage folks not to watch that video, at least without [...] making an informed decision."

So, do you think folks shouldn't make an informed decision, or do you think my decision is wrong?

Just my impression, but it appears that you might be arguing one as a proxy for another.

I think that is a generous interpretation. I fear that we are probably being asked to ignore Thunderf00t's criticism of the Hyperloop on the basis of the titles of the other videos - without even looking at the content of those videos!

The titles alone should be sufficient for us to agree that Thunderf000t is so terrible, with his terrible 'regressive' politics, that all of his videos are unworthy of watching.

I mean, do you actually believe that I think the Hyperloop is extremely important, criticism of it must be quashed at any cost, and this YouTuber will just have to be one of the broken eggs?

I'm serious. Is that... is there a part of your brain that what you just said actually makes sense to?

Is it possible in your universe that I've just expressed my actual feelings? And now we're having a big argument about my actual feelings? Even though at this point I doubt you even know what my actual feelings are?

No, I think GP is suggesting that you have some other sacred cow, and you consider the "quashing" of technical arguments about other topics to be acceptable collateral damage in protecting it.

If you think I am projecting bias in my comments, you're more than welcome to note it. Unless... is it possible I am not the only one with a sacred cow?

In fact I think you have, for the first time, identified the entire content of my original comment :)

So where's the part with the cow, again?

That was the political objection to a video about the viability of hyperloop that you're so reluctant to explain to us.

Nothing to explain.

Just what I said the first time. Sorry to be such a boring adversary.

Again, weirded out that this is such a burdensome ask for some of you. Like, I'm not even talking about my politics, just pointing out that my politics exist.

Don't you want everyone to form their own opinion, without my bias?

So y'all are doubling down on the idea that simply suggesting folks look at the context of the content they consume is some toxic bias?

If I'd suggested actually reading some content, what would that be, the Jedi Mind Trick?

See, this is why I'm not particularly worried about my politics. Even without expressing a viewpoint, your argument is utterly self-immolating.

Of course not, what a strange question.

You ended your quotation on the preposition "without", which alone should tell you that the meaning of the sentence is contingent on what follows. That sentence could end "...without putting on your PPE" or "...without grabbing a popcorn and soda first", completely opposite meanings.

And you called it the "important" part.

I realize it was a strange question. It was a strange quote.

Do you even hear yourself when you talk? "What could be more regressive?"

Um, how about deporting children? How about mandatory minimums in drug sentencing? How about forced pregnancy to death? How about racial gerrymandering?

How about, jesus, any actually regressive policy? No, when it starts interrupting low-fi YouTube debates about hypothetical public transit infrastructure, that is when the tyranny of the majority has gone too far!

Wow. Honestly, I don't even care if you or anyone wants to use HN to score a few points in Gatorade's famously unpopular ARG. But you know, people do read this stuff, and the public already has a very low opinion of technical folks' political aptitude, so when you say something outright absurd like that it reflects poorly on all of us.

Anyway, there's my "politics", hope you like them <3

You are more than encouraged to join other commenters in vigorously protesting and debating my non-argument :)

Tunderf00t's youtube channel may seem to be a product of complete lunatic, but is actually an result of years of antagonisation between members of the community that used to be very close but underwent falling out due to internal agendas and opinions on what their community actually should be.

If that's not your intent, you're just making personal attacks on the creator as a complete non-sequitur to the thread, which is even more of an inappropriate abuse of the HN audience than well-poisoning would be.

Yes, exactly. They say themselves: "They could be right, they could be wrong, better engineers than me will tell in the end." They have no interest in the topic at hand, just poisoning the well, then defending their thinly veiled well-poisoning.

I know it doesn't really make a big difference to your narrative, but you really need to pick one or the other of "political non-sequitur" and "interested well-poisoning". They just don't go together.

Otherwise, I'm here to talk if you are.

They could be right, they could be wrong, better engineers than me will tell in the end. So what? Saying something true doesn't create an obligation to listen.

In fact, if you say enough true things loudly enough, they'll cart you off to jail. It's really not a great argument.