It's more like passive-aggresive here. It's also harder to tell signal from noise if someone has to write a 500-word essay instead of saying "you're an idiot".
Stuff like "It's so strange and puzzling to see someone act illogically when the reasoning is so obvious."
It's basically calling someone a dumbass^,
It's almost like the rules are fostering an environment of self-censorship.
What I think should be legal to say is hard statements. Like, "You're wrong." Or "what you said doesn't make sense. " You need these statements to express disagreement and I think spending effort to make it polite just derails the conversation for the sake of being polite.
But passive aggressiveness with the intent to refocus the subject of the conversation onto the speaker himself is a deliberate act of malice. That should be flagged.
>For me, you disqualify your comment by using 'This.' and by using strong words that are borderline insults. To 'non-progressives' it may look like dissenting comments are downvoted but my guess is that people are just protecting the non-aggressive spirit of the site. HN needs far more moderation resources if the discourse descends into aggressive territory. To discuss controversial topics, non-mainstream arguments should be written as non-aggressively as OP's argument about overtone windows.
I am sure that without aggression, fair discussions about controversial topics can be held on HN. What I miss is a path to pass the knowledge about how to argue. My guess is that dang doesn't message korroziya and no user can reach him. People like korroziya learn to 'hold back'.