3 ms·
> It sounds like you don’t think there is any truth to what he is saying I've no idea how you reached that conclusion given that the comment you're replying to
by vosper 6y ago
> It sounds like you don’t think there is any truth to what he is saying
I've no idea how you reached that conclusion given that the comment you're replying to says
>> I'm sorry he had such experience and I'm not saying he does not have the right to be upset. He knows the best what he went through and how he feels.
- zepto 6y agoIt’s very quite simple - Mgchev is careful to validate only Jeff’s feelings, and absolutely nothing else about what he says. Indeed he goes on to make this clear: “The only thing I'm saying is that it is not correct to generalize” This invalidates everything about Jeff’s piece except for his feelings, since the entire piece is an argument that there is a systematic problem with the team that other people have experienced too. There are tweets and quotes to support this. Jeff does generalize, and he does reference other people who had similar experiences. Jeff’s entire reason for writing the piece is to generalize. He doesn’t say ‘I’m sure this is just me’. He argues quite the opposite. If it is ‘not correct to generalize’ - as Mgechev says, then Jeff must be wrong about there being a problem with the team, therefore Mgechev does not believe Jeff. You’ll notice that Mgechev repeats this ‘not correct to generalize’ here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25072705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25072705 Mgechev also says they “can't relate to his experience”. They also make no reference to (or validate) any of the other people who apparently had similar experiences or views of the team. It’s pretty reasonable to conclude that Mgechev doesn’t think there is a problem with the team and wants to convey that to us.
- bird_monster 6y ago"I did not have that experience" in no way implies "No one had that experience."
- zepto 6y agoNo, but repeatedly saying “it’s not correct to generalize”, does.
- bird_monster 6y agoNo, it really does not.
- zepto 6y agoIt does unless you take it out of context. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25073264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25073264
- bird_monster 6y agoNot sure why you're linking me your own posts, which I have read. You're determined to assert things that nobody but you said, which I guess is fine, but I don't think this conversation is constructive or useful. I would suggest you take a hard look at your behavior, though. But that's up to you.
- zepto 6y agoI linked to my post because it provides the context you ignored. Here are the tactics you have used so far: 1. Narrow definition. 2. Ignoring context. 3. Gaslighting. 4. Personal attacks. This is the other side of the coin from Mgchev‘s comment.
- bird_monster 6y agoBest of luck moving forward.
- zepto 6y agoNice and positive!
- jdmichal 6y agoGeneralization literally means to apply the point to all involved. So no, it's quite appropriate for mgechev so reject generalization if the point doesn't apply to them. And that in no way a rejection of the facts presented. The same way that the generalization "apples are red" can be rejected by the presence of green apples without denying the existence of the red apples.