6 ms·

Sounds like you're just addicted to excessive political correctness and are shocked when it's absent from a report that has no place for it. The author's job is

Sounds like you're just addicted to excessive political correctness and are shocked when it's absent from a report that has no place for it. The author's job is not to express moral stances that you agree with, but to provide accurate fact based estimates without ceremony, which they do well here.

newbie789 5y ago
This is a fascinating opinion that I’ve seen various forms of. I suppose it is objectively a fact that the author believes that increasing the supply of homeless people and allowing for the spread of a pandemic will help increase financial returns for some stakeholders. Stating the ” fact“ that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. Does the author have a crystal ball that shows various timelines, and he’s objectively reporting exactly what is shown? Or is this a human person with an opinion on the future from a specific viewpoint that’s necessarily influenced by his worldview?
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  > Stating the "fact" that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. The author is not advocating for what should be done. He's describing what he expects to happen, based on what X policy changes will affect Y result.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    You’re of the opinion that the author does have a crystal ball and is objectively relating what can be known about the future(s)? And he’s doing so in such a careful manner that he’s painstakingly taken immense care to ensure that his musings are not interpreted as prescriptive? That’s not my interpretation
    - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
      No, I don't think he is clairvoyant. He is making a forecast, a prediction about what might likely happen in the near future.
      - newbie789 5y ago
        So the phrase “will require” is descriptive and not prescriptive? That’s news to me because I was of the opinion that the future, having not happened yet and has such has never been observed, cannot be objectively described. This whole premise of “It’s not his opinion, his brain is just so big that the awful things he outwardly advocates for should be considered facts about the future, which he’s capable of observing and commenting on due to his aforementioned big brain.” is nakedly designed to carry water for people that have semi-psychopathic opinions. For example, the opinion that there won’t be enough boats on the ocean unless the homeless population increases definitely sounds like some sort of superstitious hokum, but because it’s on a bank website it’s to be treated as if it’s as logically consequent as the laws of thermodynamics. This is beyond silly. It’s slapstick.
        jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        > So the phrase "will require" is descriptive and not prescriptive? In this instance yes, I think so. So the accusation that the author is advocating for the things he describes (and thus morally bankrupt) comes down to the words "will require" in the lede? "X will require Y" is another way of saying "X won't happen until Y" and doesn't indicate favor for the cause or the effect in question. And I'm not saying it isn't his opinion. Obviously these are his opinions. There is a difference between having an opinion on what you think will happen and having an opinion on what should or ought to (rightly, justly) happen. In the body where he elaborates on his predictions in the lede he actually uses the words "will probably require", indicating he is not certain what will happen but describing what he thinks is most likely. So there is no confusion here that he is sharing opinions on future events, and not describing what will certainly happen like some sort of psychic.
        5y ago

newbie789 5y ago

This is a fascinating opinion that I’ve seen various forms of. I suppose it is objectively a fact that the author believes that increasing the supply of homeless people and allowing for the spread of a pandemic will help increase financial returns for some stakeholders. Stating the ” fact“ that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. Does the author have a crystal ball that shows various timelines, and he’s objectively reporting exactly what is shown? Or is this a human person with an opinion on the future from a specific viewpoint that’s necessarily influenced by his worldview?

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
> Stating the "fact" that one believes that human life and dignity should rightly be traded for cash does not make it an objective statement that’s somehow elevated above having an obvious moral stance. The author is not advocating for what should be done. He's describing what he expects to happen, based on what X policy changes will affect Y result.
- newbie789 5y ago
  You’re of the opinion that the author does have a crystal ball and is objectively relating what can be known about the future(s)? And he’s doing so in such a careful manner that he’s painstakingly taken immense care to ensure that his musings are not interpreted as prescriptive? That’s not my interpretation
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    No, I don't think he is clairvoyant. He is making a forecast, a prediction about what might likely happen in the near future.
    - newbie789 5y ago
      So the phrase “will require” is descriptive and not prescriptive? That’s news to me because I was of the opinion that the future, having not happened yet and has such has never been observed, cannot be objectively described. This whole premise of “It’s not his opinion, his brain is just so big that the awful things he outwardly advocates for should be considered facts about the future, which he’s capable of observing and commenting on due to his aforementioned big brain.” is nakedly designed to carry water for people that have semi-psychopathic opinions. For example, the opinion that there won’t be enough boats on the ocean unless the homeless population increases definitely sounds like some sort of superstitious hokum, but because it’s on a bank website it’s to be treated as if it’s as logically consequent as the laws of thermodynamics. This is beyond silly. It’s slapstick.
      - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        > So the phrase "will require" is descriptive and not prescriptive? In this instance yes, I think so. So the accusation that the author is advocating for the things he describes (and thus morally bankrupt) comes down to the words "will require" in the lede? "X will require Y" is another way of saying "X won't happen until Y" and doesn't indicate favor for the cause or the effect in question. And I'm not saying it isn't his opinion. Obviously these are his opinions. There is a difference between having an opinion on what you think will happen and having an opinion on what should or ought to (rightly, justly) happen. In the body where he elaborates on his predictions in the lede he actually uses the words "will probably require", indicating he is not certain what will happen but describing what he thinks is most likely. So there is no confusion here that he is sharing opinions on future events, and not describing what will certainly happen like some sort of psychic.
        5y ago