Although it was poorly phrased, what GP meant to say is that they weren't trying to intentionally offend anyone's sensibilities, they were just expressing their sincere opinion on a subject.
The GP described opposition to his argument, before it was presented, as coming from triggered members of a cult.
If this is not poisoning the well, what changes to his argument need to be present for it to cross over the line?
How much more clear does it need to be?
And to rub salt into the wound, he then went on to describe his preference as "the most correct".
I wonder what he primarily programs in.
Let me dissipate your wonderance.
I started my programming life with Delphi and C++ (pre-C++11), and when Delphi IDE became too bloated, I jumped to Python 3.x and didn't take it too seriously until Python 3.6 onwards.
But it's got all the same footguns that JS has, with fewer features.
If you're used to those footguns, why are you complaining about JS?
>my comment will trigger negatively a ton of developers, because talking about JS like this it's going to feel like I've insulted a cult. Let me be clear this is not my intention.
The salient points are:
* A lot of developer may take offense to these comments.
* "Because it's like I've insulted a cult" -> "Because it's like I'm killing the sacred cow." -> "Because it's like I'm trying to be intentionally offensive about something that's off-limits."
* This is not their intention.
If you take into account the entire paragraph I think the intent is quite clear. "If you take offense to my comments please keep in mind that I'm not trying to be intentionally offensive, I'm just expressing my personal opinion." I'll grant you that it's somewhat clumsily communicated, but that's not that surprising if ivanmontillam is not a native speaker. I think you latched on too strongly to specific words, instead of taking in the general message.
(I speak natively Spanish)
The crux is the speaker preventatively discredit any objection. In this case by suggesting they are irrational and emotonal.
“People will complain/get angry/be triggered by my theory X because theory Y is a dogma/cult/holy cow/religion/what they have been told to believe by mainstream media” - the point is of course that an objections to theory X might be perfectly resonable and fact based. Objections will tend to be defensive (“its not a cult, it is mathematically proven that…”) making them seem weaker.