Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse?
In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials.
In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation.
My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason.
I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.
A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
Thank you for supporting my argument that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
In this case, you might say you were provoked. But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier. It’s just a mess, and it’s not working out for you.
The vast majority of the comments in this post disagree with me and yet we are able to maintain a friendly curious conversation in the spirit of the HN guidelines.
A handful of people were actively derisive or insulting and I respectfully called them out for it.
> But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier
Please elaborate. I have made a conscious effort to remain civil and respectful, even when faced with direct insults.
In this particular instance, this is is what I said, and this is the reply I got:
>>> [Me] A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
>> [Reply] I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
> [Me] Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
If you have any specific suggestions of how I should have worded my replies I will be happy to read them.
If you feel any of my comments violate HN commenting guidelines [0] feel free to quote them and/or reach out to dang.
Here are some examples; I wasn't able to find any references to "performative politeness":
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Trusting in evidence and objective reasoning mark us as old people. Today the only 'facts' are social media posts.