3 ms·
I see it as a tradeoff. If someone wears their bias on their sleeve, you know where they're coming from. If not, you have no way of knowing whether you're readi
by pohl 8y ago
I see it as a tradeoff. If someone wears their bias on their sleeve, you know where they're coming from. If not, you have no way of knowing whether you're reading someone who is judiciously adhering to a process that minimizes bias, or whether they are deliberately concealing their bias, or whether they are so deluded that they imagine themselves to have no bias whatsoever, which would be absurd.
Regardless, you're still advocating for a low form of argument.
- makomk 8y agoWell, the article got pulled, so I guess it was a pretty solid warning sign after all: "Editor’s Note: This story was an opinion piece asserting there was evidence that hackers changed votes in the 2016 election. However, a number of statements in the piece are disputed by experts. As a result, we have pulled it down for editorial review, and will update it once that review is completed."
- pohl 8y agoThe editors are operating a full three levels higher (than “responding to tone”) in the hierarchy of disagreement. They’re setting a good example. (Although a bit later than ideal.)