3 ms·
I think you are in agreement with the parent post. There was an implied /s in the tone. Systemically it’s a huge problem to favor investors over whistleblowers
by milesvp 5y ago
I think you are in agreement with the parent post. There was an implied /s in the tone.
Systemically it’s a huge problem to favor investors over whistleblowers and fines. You want incentives to be aligned wherever possible, and being able to declare bankruptcy in order to protect the very people benefiting from unscrupulous acts just leads to more unscrupulous behavior.
- sombremesa 5y ago> There was an implied /s in the tone. I strongly disagree with this, because the GP has used the term "harmed investors". I think it's a dangerous practice to go around claiming other people's posts are tongue in cheek. That's how we come to allow 'locker room talk'.
- milesvp 5y agoThe heavy use of ellipses is a common giveaway for sarcasm in casual writing in the US. But I agree, part of what makes "good" sarcasm is that it's easy to interpret as being either for or against something depending on the audience, and this leads to issues like "locker room talk", allowing some unfortunate ideas to persist because it appears people agree with them. I also think sarcasm should be used sparingly on this particular forum, it's important to try to limit the possibility of ambiguity in order to foster better discussions.