4 ms·
I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to. We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP
by SilasX 6y ago
I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to.
We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does.
If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?
- jakelazaroff 6y agoYou're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the same page here.
- SilasX 6y agoSo, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoSomeone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.
- SilasX 6y agoI guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the original comment says nothing about that, and how that part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very comment.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoAt this point I don't really know how to respond other than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.
- SilasX 6y agoAll such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually outraged about in way that can convince others to join them? Yeah, sounds about right.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoYou don't need to make things clear if everyone already knows what everyone else is talking about. After an explanation that you clearly understood, I'm not sure why you're still complaining about conversational opacity.
- SilasX 6y agoNo, I didn’t get any coherent explanation of what the OP was objecting to, after offering charitable interpretations that were rejected. Edit: I did get some completely separate, independent arguments, if that’s what you mean, but I’m saying I got no explanation of the original comment.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoThe original comment (at least, I think I went far enough up-thread) said that teaching somebody how to vote and to vote in your favour, when you have power over them, is sleazy.
- SilasX 6y agoThis is the original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26263369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26263369 There were others that gave different reasons, but none that made any sense of the "OMG six pages of instructions! Horrible!"