[maxxxxx]

"As a rule of thumb: if both parties are angry at you, you're on the right track."

That's the same fallacy as saying "The truth is somewhere in between". If everybody is angry at you, maybe you just said something universally stupid. Or maybe you were right. You can't make this a rule.

[mentat → maxxxxx]

Perhaps expands to "in a world where anger is a proxy for nonconformance, and where even nuance is nonconformance, and if nuance is good because reality is not two sided, then having people angry at you is indicative of maturity in an immature world".

There's a lot to disagree with there, probably mostly around two sided-ness though there's mostly a lack of tech in meme wars, they haven't figured out how to make smaller groups and dynamically manage them effectively. I know that nuance as a sign of maturity is also directly under attack and that there's no apriori way to justify it.

[Udo → maxxxxx]

I addressed this in the other comment. It was a shitty way to convey a slightly different point. Sorry about that.

[ScottBurson → Udo]

It's fine. It's a rule of thumb -- the very phrase you used -- not an absolute.

[EdHominem → maxxxxx]

The logical complement is more reasonable: "If everyone is happy with you you're likely doing things wrong."

And the more general: "If idiots are happy with you, you're likely an idiot too - or just acting like one."

[maxxxxx → EdHominem]

I think both of these can't be generalized . Sometimes they are true, sometimes not.