Unfortunately, I do think it refutes your point. You stated the following based on someones post of "everybody should try meditation":

>Here is why it is toxic: for people who those things don't work, or for whom the proposed solution is beyond their ability, it's a short step to blaming them for their problems and writing them off.

It seems very illogical to be on a recommendation engine of a site if its difficult for you to to reason with the recommendations posted and/or the direct feedback that people also post, relating to the topic at hand. I pointed out that this is what HN was based on. I disagree that it is toxic for someone else to make a recommendation, based on their perspectives, to try something on a site like HN.

If you had possible insight I would like to understand two things:

1. Why is someone one a site like HN if they aren't the intended audience?

2. What value would they derive from the site, presumably knowing their own mental health and that any recommendation they could read would be toxic to them because they may not be able to achieve the desired outcome?

If you want to figure out what someone else is saying, you need to figure out the way they have conceptualised the issue. You won't be able to do this by insisting on your conceptualisation.

By all means, please expand on this, preferably in more than a one or two sentence answer. I've posed two questions already to help frame what you are speaking too and so far I've only seen surface level responses.