There's a few problems with the meta SE discussion you linked to, and how you're trying to apply it.

For starters, that post, and the vast majority of similar meta posts, are specifically referring to answers. Posting an answer to a question that contains an off-site link, and no useful information, is always bad. Posting an answer telling the user to go find the answer on their own is even worse; that's always been true across SE.

Secondly, even those that do refer to comments are specifically referring to Google. The problem that is brought up in every one of those posts is that Google considered Stack Exchange a high-value information source. Once a question is asked here, it quickly bubbles up to the top of Google's search results. If you allow "just google it" answers, especially if they get lots of views, you end up with Google's search pointing you at a post that tells you to Google search.

Finally, when those meta posts start talking about flagging and/or banning LMGTFY and similar links, it's not because we don't want to tell users how to search for their answers elsewhere. It's because they are frequently considered rude and almost always unhelpful.

The solution is not to say "don't ever tell a user to Google something". The solution is to make sure we say it in a way that the user ends up knowing more than when they started, and does not feel "turned off" by the site.

Comments are explicitly designed to explain to the OP what you think is wrong with their post. Downvotes without explanation is probably the number one complaint new users have, and you're explicitly encouraging us to do it more. That's just wrong.

If you think the post is poorly researched, and you're willing to leave a comment explaining why you think that, you absolutely should do that -- as politely and helpfully as possible. If you think the user would benefit from knowing about some off-site resource that contains the answers to their questions, you absolutely should leave a comment explaining that. Pointing out to a user that, for example, the Game of Thrones wiki has a list of all the character's names has none of the problems those Meta Posts describe.

This is especially true if the question is so trivial that it's likely to get closed. The M&TV scope statement explicitly calls out that we "don't want to be an IMDB clone". If a question is about to get closed because it asks for something easily found on IMDB, shouldn't we explain that to the user so they know better next time?

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/276728/425736 says:

An answer that just says "Look for XXX in google" is not an answer at all. At most, it should be a comment.

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/320044/425736 says:

If you insist to redirect someone to Google (which most probably will link you to Stack Overflow again), you can post a better comment, for example:

 

Simple Google search should answer your question, please try to do a minimal research in your future posts.

There's a few problems with the meta SE discussion you linked to, and how you're trying to apply it.

For starters, that post, and the vast majority of similar meta posts, are specifically referring to answers. Posting an answer to a question that contains an off-site link, and no useful information, is always bad. Posting an answer telling the user to go find the answer on their own is even worse; that's always been true across SE.

Secondly, even those that do refer to comments are specifically referring to Google. The problem that is brought up in every one of those posts is that Google considered Stack Exchange a high-value information source. Once a question is asked here, it quickly bubbles up to the top of Google's search results. If you allow "just google it" answers, especially if they get lots of views, you end up with Google's search pointing you at a post that tells you to Google search.

Finally, when those meta posts start talking about flagging and/or banning LMGTFY and similar links, it's not because we don't want to tell users how to search for their answers elsewhere. It's because they are frequently considered rude and almost always unhelpful.

The solution is not to say "don't ever tell a user to Google something". The solution is to make sure we say it in a way that the user ends up knowing more than when they started, and does not feel "turned off" by the site.

Comments are explicitly designed to explain to the OP what you think is wrong with their post. Downvotes without explanation is probably the number one complaint new users have, and you're explicitly encouraging us to do it more. That's just wrong.

If you think the post is poorly researched, and you're willing to leave a comment explaining why you think that, you absolutely should do that -- as politely and helpfully as possible. If you think the user would benefit from knowing about some off-site resource that contains the answers to their questions, you absolutely should leave a comment explaining that. Pointing out to a user that, for example, the Game of Thrones wiki has a list of all the character's names has none of the problems those Meta Posts describe.

This is especially true if the question is so trivial that it's likely to get closed. The M&TV scope statement explicitly calls out that we "don't want to be an IMDB clone". If a question is about to get closed because it asks for something easily found on IMDB, shouldn't we explain that to the user so they know better next time?

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/276728/425736 says:

An answer that just says "Look for XXX in google" is not an answer at all. At most, it should be a comment.

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/320044/425736 says:

If you insist to redirect someone to Google (which most probably will link you to Stack Overflow again), you can post a better comment, for example:

Simple Google search should answer your question, please try to do a minimal research in your future posts.