I highly disagree with you.

>"To take it as some sort of statistical claim and well-actually him about how low his odds are and how delusional he is, all the while kicking down and belittling what he has achieved so far, is definitely asshole behavior."

Whether or not this is ass hole behavior or not is a matter of opinion. What I'm sure we can both agree on is that what I said is the truth. And what's left is an argument on opinion, no different then a debate on whether or not you should tell a child if santa clause is real or not... but you're turning this difference of opinion into a bannable offense.

I am not a bully. Let's be clear, and I did Not harass. The worst thing I told him is that he's average, and his feelings were hurt.

> Would you tell a 12-year-old he'll never be a professional athlete, or a 5-year-old he'll never be a fireman? Statistically the odds are negligible, right?

Oh wow, this statement shows how ineffective my earlier santa clause example was in swaying your opinion. Let me put it this way... In US culture, people lie to kids. They talk about fantasies like the tooth fairy, santa clause and unrealistic occupations. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not provably a good thing either because there are tons of other cultures that do the exact opposite. There's no clear answer to this topic. What gets me here is that you're inserting your own opinion as definitive and enforcing your biases onto the forum.

Honestly, I wouldn't tell a 12 year old those things; but that's just a personal habit and not a decision I make based off of rationality. Thus, I wouldn't think it's at all bad to tell the 12 year old the cold hard truth either. An 18 year old on the other hand is a different story.

>You can't define these lines in some formal way, so even using a word like "define" is already a step away from useful.

US law functions on exact definitions. There is really good reasoning for this, but there is good reasoning for your viewpoint as well. What isn't helpful in my mind is a one sided opinion on this topic given that it's so obviously flying right in the face of hundreds existing systems (aka governments) that effectively uses exact definitions to govern people. When I ask for an exact definition it IS useful simply because such systems are literally "used" everywhere in systems of government.

>The fact that you got triggered by an 18-year-old's ambition

Ok, this is just your interpretation of it. I was never triggered by that. If anything what triggered me a little is how people interpreted my advice as "being an asshole"

>Perhaps you have some beliefs about how being brutally negative to other people is the best way to "help" them, but an open internet forum like HN is precisely the wrong place to do that—there's far too much room for misunderstanding which can easily turn into cruelty. If you're not concerned about "advice" turning into cruelty, then you don't have the other person's best interests at heart.

I don't have beliefs about being brutally negative. I have beliefs about being brutally Honest. Huge difference. Positive and honest advice is readily given until the only thing left to give is often the negative and honesty advice. And since so little of this advice is ever given out, it usually has the biggest impact because the person is often hearing it for the first time.

Imagine this scenario: If an 18 year old wanted to become the best celebrity actor in the world and wanted to give up school to go to LA to pursue that pipe dream... and I told him to not be idiotic and go back to school... is that bad or good? I feel this isomorphic scenario should help you empathize the other side of this coin EVEN if you still think the 18 y/o should be encouraged to pursue acting.

And let me re-emphasize another point. I'm not trying to change your mind. That's fundamentally impossible. What I am trying to convince you of is that you interjected your bias on a thing that has no clear conclusion. The rules as you acted on it, caused you to cross the line from moderation to censorship.

>Comparing yourself to Galileo is...rather a tall bar to clear, at least as grandiose

Let's be clear. I'm no Galileo. Galileo was an example. Not a comparison. He's an example to illustrate how biased we all are. ...How something so blindingly obvious can be mistaken for evil. Is not how grandiose and unrealistic Owen's goal is so blindingly obvious? I see a parallel here.

Either way... Given the number of people you banned Dang, I'm sure you banned someone comparable in stature to Galileo (actually... I personal know some of these people you banned); but I think part of what your saying here is that you don't give a shit and that HN isn't about that.

>This is an internet forum. There are no Galileos here—the genre doesn't allow for it.

And you're the one that fully defines what HN is? You define the Genre? I think it's push and pull. The users define it, and if they don't like your attempted redefinition, they'll leave. I'm sure you view HN as a nursery for aspiring dreamers and positive vibes but there's other vantage points as well. I view HN as a site for intellectual conversation. And for such conversations to remain intelligent; the content of these convos can't fully dictated by always being "nice" as the objective truth often offends unintentionally.

>Transgender/pronoun/$culture-war issues have zero to do with this. When you bring that up in this context, it's clear that you were at least partly motivated by an extraneous agenda. That again indicates not having the other person's interests at heart.

It's just an example, it's not evidence at all for an extraneous agenda. The purpose of the example is to try to find something you identify with. If you're woke then this failed. If you think it's a little crazy how a muscualr transgender swimmer is dominating female swimming.... well then I think you can see a parallel: how feelings and emotions take precedence over an objective and ugly truth. Either way, the point of analogies is to use comparable scenarios in hopes that it will move the needle forward in understanding. I think this failed.

>This is not battling-for-truth or whatever; it's garden-variety internet fodder, nasty and tedious.

Let me emphasize something, I'm not fighting for "justice" or "truth" anything like that. I use that "flowery" language to support a simple objective:

I simply want to come to a forum with intelligent people and state an opinion without worrying about being banned for how contrarian or different that opinion is. That's literally it.

> refusing to let go,

I can see how this can appear as an attack. I truly believe Owen was being dishonest about the extent of his usage of educational materials. I think you're misinterpreting it. I stick by my points just as much as you'll stick with your beliefs about this very topic. It's a natural thing, you won't be letting go either.