What do people get out of replying like this?
What did you get out of calling out their counterclaim?
And yes, they respond based "on their own agenda". That's what all conversation and sharing of opinions entails: telling it from your perspective, and based on what you think it's better.
>rather than replying clearly on their own terms
What you quoted couldn't be clearer, or express the responder's terms any better. Your issue is not that the response is not on their own terms, it's that is not on your terms, where phrasing it similar to what the other person said is supposed to be bad.
But that's more of a you problem. Was just looking at another thread, and chanced on you berating someone for pointing to GNU's website as opposed to writing a set of custom arguments on the spot:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45679487
As long as they aren't abusive, people can answer anyway they damn please, including rewording what the parent wrote, or pointing to some link they agree with. Is that a novel concept?
>And I'd get even more relief if they admitted to having been an asshole on purpose and apologized. God forbid, stopped acting this way.
oh, the irony.
How is this not a contradiction? They're not contorting their words, they're just restating them with subtle changes to make it "correct". What?
> And yes, they respond based "on their own agenda". That's what all conversation and sharing of opinions entails: telling it from your perspective, and based on what you think it's better.
Yes, and do you not see how clapping back by "cleverly" rewriting someone words would come across as incredibly annoying? This is just a slightly more elaborate version of how children bicker! How do I need to explain this?
> But that's more of a you problem.
It certainly seems that way...
> oh, the irony
People getting hostile in response to hostility? Oh no, not the irony?! Case in point:
> As long as they aren't abusive, people can answer anyway they damn please, including rewording what the parent wrote,
This WAS abusive, that's my whole issue dude. It'd appear what is and isn't abusive isn't a fundamental force of the universe, and you and a few of your peers here just happen to not find what I - and imo, any average person with a reading comprehension - find immensely abusive.
"Contorting someones words" is said when someone changes what somebody said to make it appear as if they meant something else.
Not when someone merely expresses a different opinion, as their own, using some part of the other's wording.
>Yes, and do you not see how clapping back by "cleverly" rewriting someone words would come across as incredibly annoying?
No. That's a you problem. And even describing it as "rewriting someone words" would be a stretch. They merely used the same noun (which they need to, as they speak about the same thing), and contended that the opposite is true:
"I think the increasingly widespread attitude that only open source software is good and trustworthy increasingly annoying and problematic"
"Software being open source almost always makes it more trustworthy, and I'm glad that more people are picking up on this over time".
The only annoying comment I see in the whole exchange is yours.
>People getting hostile in response to hostility? Oh no, not the irony?!
The only hostility was in your mind, based on your premise that responding by reusing some of the same wording is "hostile".
I further hope someone will be there afterwards to gaslight you about how there's actually nothing wrong with it, and that it's all in your head (which is like no shit, where do you think hostility arrives to?), and that it's a you problem (whose problem would you be reporting on? nonsense...).
And then people bitch and moan about the internet being dead.
They didn't counter OP's claim, though. OP is essentially saying that software other than open-source can be trustworthy and the supposed counter-claim is that open-source software is more trustworthy. Regardless of that being true or false, it's not a counter to the claim that closed-source software can also be trustworthy.
And then there's the closed source's Cloud part and its holes as well, which is a whole other can of worms.
Software being open source almost always makes it more trustworthy, and I'm glad that more people are picking up on this over time.
> I generally like people being able to out food on the table
Completely agreed, and this makes for a frustrating paradox.
I don't use Obsidian because it's closed source, but I don't think it's evil or anything. Conversely, I pay for Immich, and I hope their model is sustainable.