Do you think my comment was toxic?
Edit: if so, is there any edit you would suggest that I could explain my disagreement without being toxic?
Edit: if so, is there any edit you would suggest that I could explain my disagreement without being toxic?
Well first, you took a well-meaning article discussing how HN can be toxic. Kind of a non-debatable thing, and you debated it. You started with "disagree completely" and I know you are COMPLETELY aware that emphasizing the completeness of your disagreement is argumentative.
While I don't think your comment is TOXIC I do think it suffers from the unkind, know-it-all argumentative mentality that HN has. So as a whole, it does contribute to the toxic nature of HN.
You are basically accusing the author of "only reading the toxic parts" without you knowing whether or not they did that actually. You just assume that's what they did. Which is called a "bad faith" argument.
Later I do go on to speculate a reason why the author had such perspective. Which is just speculation on my part (that’s why I used “It seems to me”). I might be wrong in my speculation, but I don’t this is “bad faith”.
> And I don’t think that part is an opinion, it is the interpretation of a fact
You’re describing an opinion here. Your interpretation is your opinion. You’re certainly entitled to it and I think discussion is healthy, but I also think it’s dangerous to conflate your opinion (interpretation) of a fact as the fact itself.
I should have worded it better to mean that the quoted part is not “non-debateable” as the GP stated.
I wanted to express that when the author says ”HN is toxic for me” it might be an “non-debateable opinion”, but when they say (paraphrasing) ”Comments that point out what is wrong about something without empathy are upvoted on HN” I think that’s a totally debateable opinion. And I have an opposing view.
You can look at the article as an attack on a forum's reputation, and consequently on their users, by fabricating baseless blanket accusations of being a toxic community, when in truth at most it just shows people disagreeing or pointing out misconceptions and factual errors.
Would we be toxic if a random troll started insisting that the sky was green and the community posted that the troll was wrong and the sky was in fact blue?
As someone else here indicated, I think this is the part that implies superiority in some way (and as a result could be interpreted as to negative). Both 'as a regular' (meaning you must not be or you rank lower than me I earned my stripes) and 'disagree completely' (meaning you are totally and entirely wrong in what you are saying which always hurts).
You could have left that out entirely and your comment would stand on it's own.
Now I don't think that people need to walk on eggshells but maybe they should (sometimes).
Example let's say you met 'BIG IMPORTANT PERSON THAT MATTERED TO YOU IN SOME WAY' (in person) and they made a comment to you about something. Would you start by saying 'As a regular I disagree completely'. Maybe you might (I wouldn't) but if you think about it that would immediately set the wrong tone to what followed.
I used the word “imply” above, because in the text the author only explicitly says that a regular would see that there are toxic comments some times. But my impression, from the that and other remarks on the text, is that they are implying that a regular would agree that HN is toxic. Like they are trying to expose a consensus. So I wanted to push back and state that there is no such consensus.
And the “disagree completely” is explained in another comment.