Someone else did provide evidence, though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48153756
Some 16 minutes after he asked the question, so that's not an excuse for criticism of the question.
They feel very strongly about a topic, but it’s entirely based on their various personal experiences. They arrive at the conclusion first, and then try to arrange reality around their opinions.
It takes no effort and almost always obfuscates the fact that they object but would rather try and put a bunch of burden on the person rather than actually articulate their disagreement. It also gives them the semblance of being “above the fray” and “just asking questions.” It’s this nonsense https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154443 on repeat. It’s plausible deniability.
I am very surprised this has to be explained on HN. This is an old debate tactic and one that is frequently, as well as lazily, deployed on the internet. It’s a close cousin to sealioning and usually morphs into it. You are engaging in a tactic that covers your rear, requires no actual expression of opinions or values, and burdens others.
It is very unlikely you don’t have an opinion on this subject and yet you are acting like a casual observer with no opinion. If I’m wrong then I bet wrong on otherwise smart money and I apologize for the mistake.
What makes you think that this is something I’m obscuring?
Of course you do. That’s why I said something. Your omission is the problem, you intentionally didn’t say anything.
> What makes you think that this is something I’m obscuring?
This entire comment chain explains why I think that I don’t know why we’re playing games here - just be straight with people out the gate. Opacity doesn’t facilitate conversation. I know you understand what I’m talking about and I won’t belabor the point further.
I won’t engage further then because it won’t be productive. I’ll continue to call out baseless claims of course, but I don’t think there’s any amount of argumentation or evidence that could convince you since you arrived at your position via feeling - proof or citations are just window dressing.
I’m sorry that asking your side to support its claims is so offensive to you. I can’t say I relate to this mindset. It’s completely foreign to me.
As to his being answered: somebody responding to him in good faith does not suddenly validate what he was doing.