4 ms·
Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefu
by deciplex 10y ago
Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.
- Dr_tldr 10y agoRigorous? Citation needed, since a great deal of evidence points to the opposite--that these are politically motivated kangaroo courts with decisions being made by a single individual with no appeals process and no oversight.
- deciplex 10y agoAt this point I don't know what to tell you other than to re-read my post. I am clearly talking "ought" there, and not "is". This should be especially obvious considering I allocated a paragraph in my OP to explain that I think the tribunals currently are not doing good work, not to mention another paragraph to claim that the consequences of their findings are too high. It seems like you're reading just enough of what I write to type up an indignant reply, but no more than that. "Dr_tldr", indeed.
- Dr_tldr 10y agoyes, clearly swimming seamlessly between what you think should exist and what actually exists and then only distinguishing between the two when you're called out is both clear communication and rhetorically effective. Especially on the internet, where everyone has full context of your life and personal views, can see your face, listen to your intonation, and hear the comment out loud in your voice, as it was intended. Oh wait... It's not like leaving incoherent posts on HN is a war crime, but it makes the site less good when you do that. So maybe you shouldn't do that.