You are completely correct. Regarding your first and last sentences, the C19 invasion of HN has normalized "Did you read the article?" style comments, though this is explicitly recommended against in the guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'd like to try to gently point out that this isn't a very helpful way to comment. Perry did make very strong statements that show hostility to federal regulation. I myself would not characterize it as "attacking regulation", but it's not completely unreasonable to. One should allow for that kind of difference in viewpoint—speaking from experience, quibbling about precise wording won't get us anywhere, so it's usually better to allow your opponent (or partner) a generous amount of leeway. (Sometimes there are exceptions, as defining something as a "riot" or "insurrection" can be the whole crux of an issue, but this is rare compared to number of times that debate over wording completely derails a discussion).

I agree with your statement in the sense that, as I posted above, he was only criticizing one specific type of regulation. But if that is your take, or if you have a similar point to make, you really need to spell out exactly what you mean. Your current comment comes off as "you're wrong" without any helpful explanation. But, as I explained, his choice of wording is not at all unreasonable. It's very difficult for anyone to know how you think he's wrong if you don't spell it out.

Yes, even further the guidelines suggest that snark has no place on HN. One day we may undo the damage done by the massive influx of C19 redditers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit:

Replying to the misrepresentation of my words:

I did not state that HN is turning into Reddit. HN is not turning into reddit. The culture of HN has been damaged, however, by the lack of acculturation of last years influx.

Quoting the guidelines is not "throwing them at" other users. Please read the words actually written.

Those same guidelines state, and I quote:

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

Maybe you ought to try following those guidelines before throwing them at other HN users?

Setting aside the fact that I ignored the guidelines because I felt that a downvote for the post I was replying to wasn’t sufficient disagreement for a) how wrong it was and b) how it ignored the point, what’s a C19 redditor?

I did a quick Google search and only came up with the C19 core magic set.

Also you could check my profile and see that I’ve been posting on HN since 2012.

I see a sarcastic misrepresentation of the parent's comment, and nothing of substance here. Is there a deeper, substantial point you wish to make?

Yes, you are correct. Noting that [not] all cancel efforts are the same, and I'm sure there are edge cases and exceptions, it seems that generally cancel culture efforts often gain momentum when the target shows 'perceived weakness' and often lose momentum when the target makes it very clear they don't care. In the case of corporations like Disney, the very idea of telling people to "fuck off" as you say is anathema to PR culture.

You make assertions which would require that the author was mistaken, while ungraciously and unfairly accusing them of lying. Posted elsewhere in this thread is evidence suggesting the possiblity that you may, in fact, have been mistaken. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

You can schedule a class on their website *today*.

I'll grant that it's more likely a mistake than an outright lie.

I'd still recommend that you read what the thread author says with a grain of salt as they aren't corroborating the claims they're repeating.

If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing.

[1]: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBotnpslXVj/

> If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing

In that post, they announced that they will be closing, with the proximal cause being a surge of cancelations immediately after the accusations. I cannot copy paste the text as its within the images.

Edit: "...I have decided to close Kindness Yoga." Previous slide uses vague, passive, avoidant language to reference the accusations.

Are you saying that because they are now open, they never closed down?

You’re still taking a substantial risk when forming that generalized understanding, and then another substantial risk when you start making conclusions from that general understanding.

And for what?

My point is only that you strongly implied a fallacious argument, which damages your ability to reason on a topic.

Ok, so basically, since we haven’t proven the opposite, we can’t be sure, regardless of how the situation appears. I think that’s a weak argument in a general sense, but point taken.

No, I'm not arguing that proof is necessary for certainty. I'm pointing out that the implied reasoning is akin to argument from ignorance. We don't have to take a position on a topic if we are ignorant, but we often do so when doing so can be used to justify existing biases.

Can you explain the strawman you believe the parent is presenting? What is the original argument, and what is the misrepresentation?

That "hip jargon" is concise, specifies characteristics, and clarifies meaning.