Also, I don't see why if using the correct word is called "accurate," then using the wrong word is called "dogma" instead of "inaccurate." Your implication was that someone who uses the word socialist when they mean to use another word isn't thinking for themselves, I suppose, but you don't actually have any reason to think that, and even if you did, you would still want to stick to educating them instead of snarkily insulting them.
Finally, I'd like you to imagine what Hacker News would be like if people corrected technical ignorance with "CS 101. It ain't that difficult." It's a completely unhelpful thing to say. If you believe someone should actually take a 100-level political science class, then please be helpful and suggest a free university course.
I do believe you meant to help so I hope you'll incorporate these suggestions the next time you correct a political post.
I believe linking to the wiki and clearly directing him to the exact place in the wiki (the first line) communicates the information very effectively. Barrier to entry is zero and if he wants to keep reading he can go more in depth.
>I don't see why if using the correct word is called "accurate," then using the wrong word is called "dogma"
Using the wrong word is not, by definition, dogma. Dogma was inferred from other verbiage in his post, and is my opinion and the impression I got from his language.
>I'd like you to imagine what Hacker News would be like if people corrected technical ignorance with...
See above, -I don't really think this was technical ignorance. Of course I could be wrong, but that's not the premise I'm working with, or the impression I got. Hence the snark.
But as I already mentioned, I shouldn't have bothered to reply at all to what I saw as a dogmatic post. I think there's and adage about what to do when you're coming up short with niceties that applies here...
Best just to flag all political articles and rid them from the site, as they pretty much inevitably end up with discussions like this.
Edit: The comment I mean. OP's article isn't overtly political in any way. It was incredibly interesting. Even just for the insight regarding the mechanisms of QA on a purely physical level. I never imagined underwriters jetting around the nation, going into box filled hotel rooms to get busy underwriting. Learn something new every day.
Much better read
Of course, not many people understand that psychology (for price tolerance) and sociology (for price determination) are not the same thing; so trying to understand why any old "economic system" won't do, and why society's governing structure cannot just be changed like an operating system.
Ugh. I try my best not to be snarky on here, but here is the wiki explaining what socialism is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Don't worry, you don't have to read past the first sentence to reveal your complete and utter misunderstanding of the term.
The trend, over the years, has been overwhelming in favor of private ownership of the economic means of production. You're going to need to come up with another word to decry what ails you policy wise if accuracy, not dogma, is your goal.
PolySci 101. It ain't that difficult. Do I really need to GTFY on HN?