3 ms·
I don't know how you reach that conclusion without pre-existing bias against the ride-sharing companies. The legislature is absolutely to blame for comedians a
by bestnameever 6y ago
I don't know how you reach that conclusion without pre-existing bias against the ride-sharing companies.
The legislature is absolutely to blame for comedians and yoga studios getting caught in the crossfire. They are the ones that passed the regulation.
- Daishiman 6y agoThe pre existing bias borne out of the morally challenged Uber executives who have time and time again broken laws by outright ignoring labor laws in many places on the world? Yeah I wonder why...
- bestnameever 6y agothe why does not matter as much as acknowledging that you may be drawing faulty conclusions based on a bias.
- dundarious 6y agoYou seem to be implying the bias is unreasonable, by claiming the conclusions it leads to are faulty. I think that framing is uncharitable at best. What you call bias, might be better described as contextual understanding, or awareness of other highly relevant information. Given the wealth of (prominent on HN) discourse around "ride-sharing companies acting in bad faith", there's little reason to immediately frame this argument in terms of "pre-existing bias" that must be exorcised before rational discourse can begin. Of course, reasonable people can disagree with the accusations of bad faith, but for a knowledgeable person to claim it as "bias" instead of "reasoned opinion" is extremely uncharitable, verging on sophistry.
- bestnameever 6y agoNo, whether the bias is reasonable or unreasonable does not really matter. How one reaches a certain conclusion is what matters.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]