Please don't call commenters "apologists" on HN.
I think you are personalizing the debate in exactly the way you are supposedly trying to avoid. Let's debate the facts, not hurt feelings. Nobody has been rude here (at least in the few posts I read). There is nothing wrong with calling someone an apologist, as long as it is done in a respectful way and not just to get a rise out of someone. We don't need to shrink the space for debate here any more than it already has been.
> a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
Is it just me, or are the majority of online communities that I visit becoming overrun with people that get offended by the slightest amount of bold or confrontational behavior?
Objectively speaking, there is pretty strong evidence to support a belief that a "Windows bashing meme" exists to the extent that any meme can exist. Apple spent most of a decade and several billion dollars on buying over the air advertising for it's "I'm a PC campaign"; it's so socially acceptable to bash Windows that PG hisself engaged in it for many years; and a lynchpin of Silicon Valley mythology is NetScape got hosed even though it unicorn exited at about $10 Billion, Marc Andreesen's minority stake was enough to make him a VC and Jim Clark bought a gridiron football field length yacht.
It's not that I'm opposed to over-enthusiastic headlines, well written headlines should capture the reader's attention to the point that they click. What makes it "linkbait" to me is that it panders toward confirmation bias rather than encouraging curiosity: it's us-versus-them tech gossip of the sort that tends not to make people smarter. I often wonder about unicorns not seen because of YC's historical attitude toward Windows [e.g. the days when a tock processor announcement for the mid-year Macbook dominated the HN frontpage for a day or two].
As to the other topic, one form low quality HN comments [1] take is what I call "the internet pick apart". Break a post down into many sound-bites. Cast each into an unfavorable context. Then arbitrarily argue against each sound bite. The goal is to broaden the flame war across many fronts without creating a concentrated target for coherent rebuttal. The pattern is to apply it recursively to each of successive defence by the victim. The sport is to keep the target spinning [there are extra points for reintroducing sound-bites from higher in the thread].
That said, a comment that literally begins with the string "The problem with you" probably isn't intended to produce constructive dialog. Pig lipsticking it with "r argument" doesn't change the purpose. Credit where credit is due, at least the comment works its way up to the pick apart rather than down to the problem with me.
Anyway, whenever I find myself writing or saying "you" in a conversation I try to stop and try to rephrase. It's loaded. When I read comments that use "you" it's usually the rest of the internet seeping into HN. The exception is things like "You can safely assume that I didn't write this on mobile."
[1]: On the other hand, the internet pick apart and other forms of flaming and trolling and pointless arguing constitute some of the highest quality writing on the internet in general. Trolling and flaming are successful because they are writing for an audience and for entertainment and for the shear joy of writing...or at least it was for me.
> And nothing you've said in this apologist answer has come close to addressing that, you're just dancing around it.
I said the answer was apologist, not the individual.
I myself post apologist answers all the time (justifications for controversial positions), but I don't consider myself an apologist broadly speaking. I also don't presume that the above poster is an "apologist" even if I do consider this singular post "apologist" in nature.
"Apologetic" has connotations of regret. I think this confusion might lead some people to take "apologist" as a derogatory or inflammatory word, when it shouldn't be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologia
And I don't think it's the connotations of regret that lend the term "apologist" its negative connotations. The negative connotation of that word is the implication that you are bound and determined to defend some position and will not be moved — stemming from its roots of defending literal dogma. People take it to mean a sort of closed-minded, blind tribalism.
At any rate, if you don't trust your audience to read "apologetic" in the proper sense, I certainly wouldn't hold out much hope for a neutral reading of "apologist."
"The negative connotation of that word is the implication that you are bound and determined to defend some position and will not be moved — stemming from its roots of defending literal dogma. People take it to mean a sort of closed-minded, blind tribalism."