I have read the guidelines but they don't cover this situation. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to respond (or, especially, not respond) other than like I did. How should I, assuming the following:
-- The literal part of the comment was misinformation.
-- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats.
-- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.)
-- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further.
My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution.
What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?
Comments to HN need to be civil and substantive. The comment was neither. Here's how I look at it:
"Congratulations on completely not understanding" --> snark and personal swipe—definitely uncivil.
"the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years" --> ok, but just mentioning this isn't the same as saying anything substantive about it.
"You win all the prizes" --> more snark and personal swipe
Civility is most important, so if you'd dropped the first and third bits and kept the second, we wouldn't have chided you. But if you wanted to post a good comment, it could have begun like this:
Obesity research for the last 15 years has shown there's a lot more to this. For example, ... and then add something specific.
Don't you understand?! Anything specific would legitimizing the comment and subtext of the posters comment. This feeds into a false narrative that's been going on for years.
Anything without snark would have made the commentator's message seem legitimate! Only the snark shuts down false "scientific sounding" narrative and the fat shaming subtext.
KirinDave's reply, while well intentioned, still feeds into this narrative and allows the commenter to continue arguing that fat people just need to buckle down and stop shoveling food in order to balance calories.
We'll disagree on this. I think a lack of civility and the addition of snark is indeed called for in these types of comments. However, I understand your comments and realize that the mods make the community. Time for me to step away I guess.
-- The literal part of the comment was misinformation.
-- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats.
-- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.)
-- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further.
My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution.
What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?