No on the Internet.
Especially not on the sea-lion infested HR-world Internet, in which trolling has evolved to exploit good faith directly.
___
In fact, "being overly hostile" is exactly how you probe to see whether your suspicions are correct.
Sea lioning exploits the gap between what would be a real human thing to do and what still passes as what a real human would do.
So to get useful data, you need to modulate parameters so that people end up outside of that gap window.
Essentially you're probing for genuine Human-ness by creating a context in which the bad faith action space is no longer overlapping with the genuine human action space.
This works, because genuine humans have this amazing ability to reconcile and actually genuinely resolve misunderstandings. Something that is fundamentally impossible for bad faith actors.
(This should not be understood as "just be overly hostile" because simply being a dick doesn't provide any data at all.)
If you're a dick for a reason, you're still being a dick. (Your word not mine)
And I don't see how your approach makes discourse any better.
To me the parents question was reasonable. Skeuomorphism was designed for people that may never have seen a computer before. Do we need to still be clicking a floppy disc to save a file?
There's probably differences in how you define flat design. You could include all the issues of current implementations in that definition, or you could say that the burger menu is just bad UX and could be fixed without going back to skeuomorphism.
But you haven't really delved into that.
Dude, are you also playing that script or what?
Of course you do not engage on the level the possibly malicious party wants you to engage, because if you do that, you play their game by their rules.
Have you even tried engaging with what I just said? (inb4 "but you didn't do either!!111")
God, this fucking platform. Whatever man. Go have fun being dragged (or dragging others) into never-ending bad-faith arguments.