Flamewars run on more than just insults. (though the snark in your comment did sound insulting, when I first read it.) Attributing a stupid position to somebody else, especially on an inflammatory topic, is flamebait and against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
On a second reading though, it doesn't seem worse than the comment you were replying to, so I'll reattach it.
Btw, your follow-up here is a case of an interesting phenomenon I've noticed many times: people often give a better (i.e. more neutral and explicit) expression of what they originally meant, when explaining it in response to a moderation scolding.
It is as if the original comment presupposed the meaning and just gave us the snark, where the follow-up spells out the actual argument. Usually the actual argument isn't obvious; that is, it's obvious to you (i.e. the original commenter) because you have it in your head already—but it isn't obvious to the rest of us. Since that's the interesting bit, it would be better to include it up front (and then you could drop the snark as well).
I'm not sure if there's any way to actually use this pattern to improve the threads—short of scolding every comment, which would end up becoming background noise soon anyhow—but it's interesting how frequently it shows up.
I thought the original comment was very good. It was succinct, humorous in an absurd way yet truthful if the reader was willing to decipher it.
I guess it could be considered snarky however I was mocking a common perspective (the idea) not the commenter that I was replying to (the person). The GPU shortage during the pandemic pushed a large percentage of the gaming population to despise cryptocurrency. Often they will criticise cryptocurrencies for contributing to climate change without realising the hypocrisy of that position.
If I had to write a rule to discourage comments like mine it would be:
"critical replies should quote and address the points of disagreement in their response directly"
This would cover indirect criticisms like mine that cause some people to react emotionally. I guess a rule like this might be too strict to enforce though maybe it could only be enforced on the most serious of offenders.
On a second reading though, it doesn't seem worse than the comment you were replying to, so I'll reattach it.
Btw, your follow-up here is a case of an interesting phenomenon I've noticed many times: people often give a better (i.e. more neutral and explicit) expression of what they originally meant, when explaining it in response to a moderation scolding.
It is as if the original comment presupposed the meaning and just gave us the snark, where the follow-up spells out the actual argument. Usually the actual argument isn't obvious; that is, it's obvious to you (i.e. the original commenter) because you have it in your head already—but it isn't obvious to the rest of us. Since that's the interesting bit, it would be better to include it up front (and then you could drop the snark as well).
I'm not sure if there's any way to actually use this pattern to improve the threads—short of scolding every comment, which would end up becoming background noise soon anyhow—but it's interesting how frequently it shows up.