I've edited the post accordingly, it was a brain fart moment... But thanks for your sincere feedback

My grandmother occasionally calls her children by each others' names. She's done it her entire life. She even mixes up her son's name and her daughters'. What she named her children is "fundamental and basic", too, and she's certainly an expert in how they're named. Heck, they're not even spelled similarly.

Please help keep HN a nicer place by giving others the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not quite following. Are you only expecting experts to comment here? If so, are you an expert in the frequency and type of textual errors and how that relates to expertise?

The issue is when you have what currently is the top comment for this article, written in a manner which implies that the writer knows what they are talking about (i.e. /u/airstrike using terminology like "after spending more time than I'm willing to admit listening to every finance talking head out there").

I'm calling into question /u/airstrike's legitimacy due to not being able to differentiate between monetary and fiscal policy in their explanation. This is because, you learn about what monetary and fiscal policy are very early on, like in an introductory economics course. It raises red flags when you are unable to differentiate the two. I mention the spelling of 'monetary' versus 'fiscal' and how different they are in order to argue that it's unlikely /u/airstrike made the mistake because of a grammatical error or say because they were typing too fast.

I apologize if I sound harsh here, but I think it's important that things like these are called out. While /u/airstrike might not purposely be trying to do it here in his/her comment, this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to misinformation spreading.

How about you take his apology and move on?

My response was to /u/wpietri who asked for a clarification.

I was actually pointing out the contradiction between your supposed standard and your behavior. But fair enough, it was phrased as a question. Which, it turns out, you did not actually answer, so if you were trying to clarify things I don't think you succeeded.

I think there's an enormous difference between "I have some polite questions about your level of expertise" and "I will repeatedly jump on a possibly-innocent error".

I will note that airstrike is not "unable to differentiate the two". They have quite clearly gone on to demonstrate that ability.

It is important to make sure false information doesn't circulate. But I don't think that excuses being "harsh".

Ahh, I see. I think I understand the confusion now. I believe our primary disagreement here lies in the fact that you don't see /u/airstrike not differentiating between fiscal and monetary policy in his/her original comment, as a major red flag, whereas from my perspective I do.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Stand up. Take a big stretch. Do something besides the internet for a few hours and then think about what you’re typing.

You're wrong. That is not our primary disagreement.

I'm trying to have a genuine discussion here with you, but that requires two-way communication.

I've laid out what I think to be the issue between our perspectives. If you disagree, that's more than fine, but you've got to give me more than a "you're wrong" if you want to have a meaningful conversation.

I made my choice.

From your behavior here you do not strike me a somebody currently ready to have a meaningful conversation on this topic. I'd suggest pointing a few people whose opinions you respect and who have a head for nuance at this discussion. Maybe they can help you.