4 ms·

> I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I

> I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I replied to didn't make any sort of actual argument; it's just a statement. Therefore, I don't understand how they reached their conclusion. > One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. Right, and the other will not record the observation, potentially beat you or shoot you, and if you take it to court, have their word trusted against yours almost universally by a jury, leaving you absolutely no recourse when you lose the case because the police officer may or may not have lied in their report. > just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives Sorry I'm so dumb, I guess?

NikolaNovak 7y ago
Apologies if it sounded condescending; it was the "I really don't understand how..." part of the post that, in turn, sounded to me as condescending - as if there's no plausible way anybody would prefer a cop over a camera, to the point you can't even understand why somebody would think so. It sounded dishonest because I feel, and perhaps I'm wrong, that with some effort to understand another person's perspective, most HN audience would be able to understand why somebody might prefer a cop over a camera. I am still not certain - were you literally unable to understand why somebody would prefer a cop, or were you unwilling to make the effort, or - something else? :|
- lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  I literally don't understand why somebody would prefer a cop over a camera on every street corner of the US. And just to be double clear, I understand the downsides of having everything on video; in this hypothetical situation, it's my opinion that having a cop on every street corner of the US is the greater evil, while having a camera in their place is a lesser evil. Both evils, both absurd hypothetical scenarios. Both fun to think about because I like dystopian societies.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    Well, then, I suppose I was / am condescending, with a dose of pity and sadness: - If your message is "I vehemently disagree, with every bone in my body, with the idea of having cops instead of cameras" - sure, that's a valid viewpoint we can have a lot of fun productively discussing, even if we never in the end agree. - If your message is, as you repeatedly indicate, "I literally don't understand [the other point of view]", there is no discussion to be had. From where I'm standing, you are either unwilling, or incapable, of making the effort. A physical/sociopathic lack of empathy, or inability or willingness to process and examine different perspectives, or incredible amount of stubbornness, whatever it may be. If details of other side are presented to you, and you still "literally don't understand" it, then... I don't know, discussion is done one way or another? We are failing on point one of the pyramid of productive/honest discussions and arguments [1]. [note in this framework, understanding, and agreeing, are entirely separate considerations] 1: http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindnes...

NikolaNovak 7y ago

Apologies if it sounded condescending; it was the "I really don't understand how..." part of the post that, in turn, sounded to me as condescending - as if there's no plausible way anybody would prefer a cop over a camera, to the point you can't even understand why somebody would think so. It sounded dishonest because I feel, and perhaps I'm wrong, that with some effort to understand another person's perspective, most HN audience would be able to understand why somebody might prefer a cop over a camera. I am still not certain - were you literally unable to understand why somebody would prefer a cop, or were you unwilling to make the effort, or - something else? :|

lovehashbrowns 7y ago
I literally don't understand why somebody would prefer a cop over a camera on every street corner of the US. And just to be double clear, I understand the downsides of having everything on video; in this hypothetical situation, it's my opinion that having a cop on every street corner of the US is the greater evil, while having a camera in their place is a lesser evil. Both evils, both absurd hypothetical scenarios. Both fun to think about because I like dystopian societies.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  Well, then, I suppose I was / am condescending, with a dose of pity and sadness: - If your message is "I vehemently disagree, with every bone in my body, with the idea of having cops instead of cameras" - sure, that's a valid viewpoint we can have a lot of fun productively discussing, even if we never in the end agree. - If your message is, as you repeatedly indicate, "I literally don't understand [the other point of view]", there is no discussion to be had. From where I'm standing, you are either unwilling, or incapable, of making the effort. A physical/sociopathic lack of empathy, or inability or willingness to process and examine different perspectives, or incredible amount of stubbornness, whatever it may be. If details of other side are presented to you, and you still "literally don't understand" it, then... I don't know, discussion is done one way or another? We are failing on point one of the pyramid of productive/honest discussions and arguments [1]. [note in this framework, understanding, and agreeing, are entirely separate considerations] 1: http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindnes...