This isn't a reference library. In the absence of a citation, I think its perfectly acceptable to automatically read that (or any comment post or blog) as "My perception is..." and move on without criticizing.
I think it's perfectly absurd to expect that a brief intelligent comment on a social chat board be expected to include encyclopedic completeness and citations to ward off every conceivable casual wanton misinterpretation.
What's wrong with saying "This is becoming a lot more common lately" and without any supporting evidence, assuming opinion, rather than "This seems to be becoming a lot more common lately"? I think you would do well to answer that question first, as your question presupposes this question has already been answered, when it fact it has not.
Indeed, you have broken your own rule and left your comment open for easy misinterpretation.
Well, I prefer the latter because it leads to a community where I can take more posts at face value and thus learn quicker. I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage this kind of behaviour. It seems to have very little cost.
> Indeed, you have broken your own rule and left your comment open for easy misinterpretation.
I think you would do well to answer that question first, as your question presupposes this question has already been answered, when it fact it has not.
Asking why X is superior to Y is nothing more than an attempt to place the burden on someone else rather than yourself. You presupposed that Y is superior to X without any proof being offered.
It's akin to me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife," or other questions like that.
> Have I? What's easy to misinterpret?
So, specifically, with your statements, you make it seem like you've already proven your side, when in fact, you've done no such thing. It's disingenuous and manipulative. So, either you meant to be that way (dishonest), or you simply made a mistake of not backing up your opinion (What you are arguing against).
So, considering the later is what you are arguing against, it's very easy to assume you are simply trying to be dishonest. I'd like to think better of HN, and assume that people generally speak their opinion, and only assume they are speaking fact when they are providing sources or it's something I also know about.
> Well, I prefer the latter because it leads to a community where I can take more posts at face value and thus learn quicker.
Their is asking for clarification, and asking for clarification rudely, which is what I saw happening, as did others, I imagine. Their is value in asking for citations, no one questions that. The GP was clearly stating an opinion based on his own observations. The question in response was of little value because it was merely being antagonistic.
> I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage this kind of behaviour.
Peppering phrases with weasel words? People should just say what they think, rather than qualify every statement with qualifying statements. Case in point:
> Your response makes me wonder if we're even talking about the same issue.
We are. That you are confused is clear by other remarks, and it's almost time for GoT, so I don't feel like spending the time restating what has already been said.
> I should have said...
I know what you meant. I didn't really need a citation. I've already made it clear my stance on the matter.
However, that you would make such an error and then question whether we are talking about the same issue should be troublesome for you. In a topic on this very subject, you yourself can't meet your own standards of clarity. So, if you said something different then what you meant, how can you presume to understand those that attempt to hold conversations with you?
It's far easy to assume opinion then to assume perfect English. Especially on a board where English is not always the first language, and the subtleties of "It seems to have very little cost" and "I think it seems to have very little cost" is meaningless to all but a rare few.
What is wrong is nitpicking apart the nuanced difference when it was just a casual intelligent comment made in a social setting, where reasonable expectation is to get the point rather than belabor its numerous subtle variants pursuant to wanton misinterpretation.
Personally, I've given up on misinterpretation and just assume bad faith when it comes to comments shaped like the thread parent's. I dismiss and, by virtue of scrolling down, take a look at the respondents to see if anyone has anything useful to sub in.
And for another, we used to wait till people were sentenced / punished before claiming that they were punished.
This is an article about their prosecution. Prosecutors push for the maximum sentence that they can possibly get, and have done so since the dawn of time. Whether or not they are _actually_ sentenced depends on the judge.
As far as I can tell, this is a hit-piece by the defense team of these three individuals to drum up public support, and hope for a reduced sentence.
>And for another, we used to wait till people were sentenced / punished before claiming that they were punished. This is an article about their prosecution. Prosecutors push for the maximum sentence that they can possibly get, and have done so since the dawn of time. Whether or not they are _actually_ sentenced depends on the judge.
One: how did that work out for Aaron Swartz? I'm asking because the same BS was said in the defence of the prosecutors actions then.
Second: Citation needed, that prosecutors have "since the dawn of time" pushed for the same kind of sentences in the same kind of cases. Merely pushing for a little more doesn't qualify -- this is an extreme blow up of the actual offence here.
Third: I'm appalled by your casual dismissal of this, as "it's how it's always been". Even with the actual sentencing depending on the judge, this over-blowing of offences is a moral and legal problem that should stop. The prosecutors should push for the sentence that is appropriate to the crime, as they perceive it, not to "the maximum sentence they can possibly get". Their job is to serve justice, not to put as many people in jail as they can.
Fourth: Who said that asking for the "maximum sentence" is a harmless tactic? Who said it doesn't impact the jury's decision and the sentence that the judge will give? If the offence is something that should get 10 years in prison, and they ask for life, then maybe this will provoke a sentence of 15 years. The same tactic also can lead to innocent people plea to guilty, instead of risking a potential 5 or 10 years in prison (where they would actually take their chance for their actual lower appropriate sentence).
Aaron Swartz decided it wasn't worth fighting the good fight. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but it was his decision to give up, not his defense team's. It is very difficult to call someone who commits suicide a Martyr. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.
No one knows how Aaron Swartz's case could have ended up. All we know is that he gave up... in the way that hurt his friends and family the most.
Prosecutors push for the maximum because we have an adversarial system in the USA. It is the prosecutor's job to push for the worst, and it is the Judge / Jury's job to decide when the prosecutor has gone too far. It is the defense team's job to argue against the prosecutor.
What about Weev? Specifically, the crime he was charged with, not whatever other stuff he got up to before. There was zero damage from that, except to AT&T's reputation.
I think the reference is to the war on whistleblowers. That part is more common. Also it is true that protesters are treated worse more recently than they have been for a few decades.
The problem though is that if you go back more than a few decades, it is not clear the trend is downward so much as cyclical.
