Your comment presumes that "negativity" has no place in a "civilized discussion," which is outrageous.
Honestly, the discourse here is pretty civil and all of the points are valid. When did it become "uncivilized" to argue that something is detrimental? (If this is true, is it not then totally "uncivilized" to decry negativity on HN?)
This irrational insistence on artificial enthusiasm and compulsory positivity is ridiculous. Skepticism is the foundation of "civilized discourse."
Nowhere is it written that you have to entertain every idea, even those with which you vehemently disagree, with disingenuous positivity. That's not what HN is for.
Honestly, the discourse here is pretty civil and all of the points are valid. When did it become "uncivilized" to argue that something is detrimental? (If this is true, is it not then totally "uncivilized" to decry negativity on HN?)
This irrational insistence on artificial enthusiasm and compulsory positivity is ridiculous. Skepticism is the foundation of "civilized discourse."
Nowhere is it written that you have to entertain every idea, even those with which you vehemently disagree, with disingenuous positivity. That's not what HN is for.