4 ms·
> You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have ta
by cma 5y ago
> You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people.
Can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you have to?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoWell, I’m not sure what “have to” means. If I got a Washington Post article published about how suchandsuch person made a HN comment I don’t like, I would call that a clear case of harassment, no matter how much proof I had that the comment was wrong.
- cma 5y agoSo the law should be Washington Post has a criminal-trial style burden of proof for articles?