4 ms·

I really don’t think it’s grossly uncharitable at all. The details of the editorial process aren’t especially relevant, the article itself is some grim anecdote

I really don’t think it’s grossly uncharitable at all. The details of the editorial process aren’t especially relevant, the article itself is some grim anecdote being used to promote a policy agenda. Regardless of the merit of the position being promoted, it’s intentionally emotionally manipulative, it’s anti-rational and anti-intellectual. It’s also entirely based upon the presupposition that the problem they’re talking about only has one cause, and one possible solution. Framing issues in this way means that any criticism of the presuppositions of, or conclusions draw by the author, is likely to be seen as disparagement of a clearly sympathetic person. It’s not a rational way to discuss a problem, and it’s incredibly low quality journalism.

gist 5y ago
> I really don’t think it’s grossly uncharitable at all. I agree and will state that whenever a thread like this is on HN you have to walk on eggshells. The minute mental illness or any sensitive topic (hardship, health, whatever is presented) all the compassion comes out from possibly the same people who would otherwise jump all over someone's point of view about a non compassion topic. It's kind of the HN version of 'we won't be angry at you on your birthday day after back to being a dick'. I also love the predictable 'get help' ok great thanks I am sure the person writing doesn't know hasn't thought of or hasn't tried that already.
wpietri 5y ago
Your complaint is that she... has feelings about her husband's death and how that affected her kids? You seem to have a belief that emotion and reason are incompatible. And a fantasy that problems get fixed in the real world without anybody making emotional appeals or having feelings about the problems. As to the first, a good place to start is Damasio's "Decartes' Error": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error As to the latter, I don't know what to tell you, but it's obviously not the case, and believing otherwise is not any sort of intellectual or rational position. Which is obvious from your writing; you're clearly having a lot of feelings here. I'd add that it's perfectly possible to critique the conclusions of somebody who's making an emotional argument. The basic point here is that we should have more and better health services. You could say, "This story is heartbreaking, and I feel for her and her kids, but here's why more money is not the way to solve the problem." I think the actual problem here is that you don't want to "feel for her and her kids", which, yes, is going to make you look unempathetic and disparaging in your attempts to get her to hide her pain.

gist 5y ago

> I really don’t think it’s grossly uncharitable at all. I agree and will state that whenever a thread like this is on HN you have to walk on eggshells. The minute mental illness or any sensitive topic (hardship, health, whatever is presented) all the compassion comes out from possibly the same people who would otherwise jump all over someone's point of view about a non compassion topic. It's kind of the HN version of 'we won't be angry at you on your birthday day after back to being a dick'. I also love the predictable 'get help' ok great thanks I am sure the person writing doesn't know hasn't thought of or hasn't tried that already.

wpietri 5y ago

Your complaint is that she... has feelings about her husband's death and how that affected her kids? You seem to have a belief that emotion and reason are incompatible. And a fantasy that problems get fixed in the real world without anybody making emotional appeals or having feelings about the problems. As to the first, a good place to start is Damasio's "Decartes' Error": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error As to the latter, I don't know what to tell you, but it's obviously not the case, and believing otherwise is not any sort of intellectual or rational position. Which is obvious from your writing; you're clearly having a lot of feelings here. I'd add that it's perfectly possible to critique the conclusions of somebody who's making an emotional argument. The basic point here is that we should have more and better health services. You could say, "This story is heartbreaking, and I feel for her and her kids, but here's why more money is not the way to solve the problem." I think the actual problem here is that you don't want to "feel for her and her kids", which, yes, is going to make you look unempathetic and disparaging in your attempts to get her to hide her pain.