4 ms·
To be fair the original comment (which is top comment at the time of this writing) is not making a good faith argument.
by atomi 6y ago
To be fair the original comment (which is top comment at the time of this writing) is not making a good faith argument.
- dang 6y agoCommenters here need to follow the rules regardless of what someone else did. Otherwise we just end in a downward spiral, because it always feels like the other person started it. If by the original comment you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333929, I don't see any indicator of bad faith there. Maybe it's wrong or even very wrong but that's not the same as bad faith.
- atomi 6y agoFor posterity, the bad-faith in the original comment is based on the fact that the poster states that tagging something as disputed is itself arbitration. But the act of tagging a tweet as "disputed" is a purposeful deference of arbitration to 3rd parties. In other words, the action is the opposite of what he/she is saying and the poster is either self-deceived or wantonly obfuscating truth and deceiving others - very bad-faith.
- dang 6y agoI think you're reading that comment overly literally. But even if you're right, the psychological state you're deriving from it does not necessarily follow. You're the one filling in that step, and then using it to attack someone else ("bad faith"). That's the part we ask people not to do here, for what should be obvious reasons. Before you get to "the poster is either self-deceived", your post here is a fine critical comment and could easily just stop there.