Perhaps you don't owe billionaire trolls better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Billionaire troll is also objectively factual.
I understand the reasons for wanting a passionate topic to stay cool, I'm just genuinely curious about the personal attack angle, not stirring the pot.
What I'm asking is what makes his facts personal attacks and yours simply a 'fact'.
When trying to persuade people not to fulminate and whatnot, I usually make an "even if you're right" argument: "even if you're right about $topic, please don't post the way you just did, because it's bad for the community". It doesn't mean I actually think they're right.
A harder-nosed way to say it would be: "it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you broke the rules and that's that". But it usually works better to include the possibility that the commenter is right. It costs nothing (the moderation point is the same either way) and it signals "I understand your point of view and it's not my purpose to dispute it". In this way you're standing alongside the other person, persuading them, instead of standing opposite, berating them.
It's also more efficient because by explicitly separating the two things (being right vs. following the rules), there's less energy for the otherwise inevitable objection, "you just don't like what I posted because you disagree with it".
So when I said "billionaire troll" it was not to agree, but rather to say "see? I understand your point of view, but you're participating in a community where we all have to take care of the ecosystem—you can't just toss lit matches or trash the place". Reflecting someone's point back to them in language they recognize is a more effective way to show you understand their point of view than merely saying "I understand your point of view". Nevertheless, the operative word in the sentence remains "but".
Of course, if you go too far in doing that, you run the risk of upsetting the other side, so you have to thread the needle. I probably should have used a more neutral phrase.
I'll try and keep this is mind going forward for my own comments as well.
If you are searching for role models for life, it is better to search inward. Plenty of philosophical texts you can read.
And there is an oversupply of hatemongers on the net.
Reminds me of Jürgen Klopp, Liverpool FC coach, being asked by the media what did he think about the pandemic, to which he answered, paraphrased: "why the hell are you asking me such a question? I'm a football coach, who cares about my opinion on a pandemic. Go talk with a doctor or a virologist, not a football guy."
EDIT: found the link: https://youtu.be/tZ4bKnpxbYc
He called the diver a pedophile, hired a private investigator to study him and claimed to Buzzfeed in an email("off the record") that he has evidence of the diver being a rapist and buying his wife, or something to that effect.
All of those were invented lies, but he also won the defamation lawsuit against him, because he's rich and he can do whatever he wants with no consequences.
Oh yeah, he also flew to Thailand for a photo op with the military, showcasing his idiotic submarine while kids were dying in that cave.
He's a narcissistic asshole at best, a sociopath at worst.
But even things like the tesla tunnels, and being against public transportation.
Everyone involved with programming or science in general should have called that a scam from the very begging and I'm still mystified that everyone bought it.
But after he started speaking out against the censorship of Twitter, and about depopulation being a problem, and calling out bill gates and Biden, I appreciate him more than before. I think he wouldn't try to back off if he didn't initiate the deal at what was probably the market top for the next several years.