When we are talking about toxic, I think we all understood it meant behavior. And the point of community guidelines isn't to make it the community more inclusive, it's actually to make it more exclusive. Limiting speech and thoughts are exclusive behaviors, not inclusive ones. But I'm all for HN or any other platform having guidelines.
I studied philosophy in college so I don't need an explanation of what poisoning the well is. "Poisoning the well" itself is poisoning the well and I don't want to get into the intricacies of ad hominems and logical fallacies. Many times, people misunderstand logical fallacies and use logical fallacies themselves to stifle debate.
Also, Linus wasn't having an argument or a debate. He was giving his opinion. He is allowed to say someone's argument is stupid : "how stupid your argument is.". He didn't call people stupid, he called the argument stupid.
Finally, ad hominems may or may not stifle discussion from the passionless or people who don't care about the topic, but it never stifles discussion from passionate people or people who care about a topic. Every major debate - going back to religious debates or debates about science or debates about slavery or debates about civil rights or anything else was "passionate". Can you imagine these debates being shut down because that's not what "polite company discusses"?
And why would it matter whether you virtue signal anonymously or not? You are already anonymous as HN is thankfully an anonymous forum. One thing HN is fairly good about ( as far as I know ) is anonymity.
I don't believe in ad hominems or attacking people. But if people want to use harsh language to express ideas they are passionate about, I say go for it. The same goes for you. You seem passionate about the subject and I support your right to express it in whatever manner you choose. What I find ironic is that under the aegis of "inclusivity and encouraging discussion", you are advocating for exclusion and stifling Linux Torvalds' speech. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly, you can see that you are doing precisely what you claim Torvalds is doing - stifling speech ( or at least advocating for it ).
I studied philosophy in college so I don't need an explanation of what poisoning the well is. "Poisoning the well" itself is poisoning the well and I don't want to get into the intricacies of ad hominems and logical fallacies. Many times, people misunderstand logical fallacies and use logical fallacies themselves to stifle debate.
Also, Linus wasn't having an argument or a debate. He was giving his opinion. He is allowed to say someone's argument is stupid : "how stupid your argument is.". He didn't call people stupid, he called the argument stupid.
Finally, ad hominems may or may not stifle discussion from the passionless or people who don't care about the topic, but it never stifles discussion from passionate people or people who care about a topic. Every major debate - going back to religious debates or debates about science or debates about slavery or debates about civil rights or anything else was "passionate". Can you imagine these debates being shut down because that's not what "polite company discusses"?
And why would it matter whether you virtue signal anonymously or not? You are already anonymous as HN is thankfully an anonymous forum. One thing HN is fairly good about ( as far as I know ) is anonymity.
I don't believe in ad hominems or attacking people. But if people want to use harsh language to express ideas they are passionate about, I say go for it. The same goes for you. You seem passionate about the subject and I support your right to express it in whatever manner you choose. What I find ironic is that under the aegis of "inclusivity and encouraging discussion", you are advocating for exclusion and stifling Linux Torvalds' speech. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Certainly, you can see that you are doing precisely what you claim Torvalds is doing - stifling speech ( or at least advocating for it ).