> Sounds like something that should be backed up
Why? People state their opinions and experiences on HN all the time without such a requirement.
Why? People state their opinions and experiences on HN all the time without such a requirement.
"language X is better than Y" is an opinion we accept at face value without sources, since it doesn't affect users of language Y, and has limited impact if it's wrong. Comparing a political stance to a disease does affect the users (implies they're 'sick' and need treatment) and has a big impact if it's wrong (and the non-leftism policies get put into place).
Compare "Perl is better than PHP" to "PHP is the brain tumor of server-side web languages".
Plus: there's no indication of which policies have caused this situation, so it's presumptuous to claim they're caused by leftism.
If I say Marxism is evil, aren't I also vilifying subscribers to that philosophy? That's fine, since it's a choice; both to take ideological criticisms personally, and to subscribe to it in the first place.
> Comparing a political stance to a disease does affect the users
I can't see how.
Yes, and I would not be surprised to see people challenging that statement/asking for facts.
> > Comparing a political stance to a disease does affect the users
> I can't see how.
See my example from the post you quoted. Does it make sense? Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer who is aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the language & is comfortable weighing up the various trade-offs.
Then we disagree. I distinguish ideology from person.
> Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer
I'd say that programmer has too much of their ego invested in their choice of language. The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected.
Would you happily say the same wrt criticism of a belief in flat-earth?
So do I? Bit of a non-sequitur…
> Would you happily say the same wrt criticism of a belief in flat-earth?
Happily? What a loaded question.
Would I expect a flat-earther to respond to claims which criticized their point-of-view by requesting evidence? Yes I would.
edit
> The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected.
People are affected by criticism simply by receiving it. Feeling unhappy because of criticism is being personally affected. Words can harm and kill.
Do you? you said you agree that "X is evil" villifies subscribers that philosophy.
> Feeling unhappy because of criticism is being personally affected
Not really, there is a difference between "I am a bad person" and "I subscribe to a bad ideology". The difference is you can un-subscribe if persuaded.
> Words can harm and kill
that's a non-sequitur..
> Do you? you said you agree that "X is evil" villifies subscribers that philosophy.
It does. That's what those words mean. I didn't say I would find them evil (which is what you're claiming I meant). You haven't asked me how I feel about any particular economical-political theory.
Is there something I could say that would cause you to reconsider your stance? If there is not, then please consider if this is the most productive use of your time.
I disagree. Care to back up that personal insult?
> Is there something I could say that would cause you to reconsider your stance?
Same to you.
Because we're literally talking about an article about how fact-free policies are a bad thing.