This breaks the HN guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

That's particularly important in a thread that's likely to flare up at any moment. Flames have a lot of energy but intellectually interesting they are not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's not even close to what I said or implied.

You are not necessarily the master of your own truth

OP said simply this:

> Treat others with respect.

I guess you're implying that you disagree and that you should be a dick to everyone else?

> OP said simply this:

>> Treat others with respect.

No, the OP's comment was much longer than four words, and part of it implied that if you're not PC then you're a jerk.

It's a lot easier to see the problem with the OPs comment if you think about what it means to be good, and how the definition of "being good" can vary so much between people.

If you want to talk with people about what being PC really is, you have to use fewer vague, high-level abstractions like "jerk" and "respect" and more concrete examples.

Wrong. I simply said that a large part of "being PC" is not being a jerk to others.

No, I'm saying that, in relation to any given topic, there are many acceptable viewpoints, and that you can't just shut down the discussion and outlaw the expression of opinions which differ from your own.

And that's what PC is: we're the nice guys; anyone who disagrees with us is engaging in hate speech; so let's just gag them and send them to Antarctica.

PC is essentially totalitarian. One point of view, no arguments.