4 ms·

Why would the author need to be "unbiased" and what would "unbiased" look like to you ? Maybe "unbiased" would look more like your crypto-happy post history ?

• TAKEMYMONEY 5y ago
  The parent didn't say the author "needed to be unbiased" only that their bias was stupefying. (Now you added a personal attack about their post history, I don't think that's constructive.)
  • krinchan 5y ago
    Pointing out a post history with a definitive bias in favor of cryptocurrency adds context to the commenter’s statement of finding the author’s bias stupefying. It helps other readers of the thread to make a better decision about whether or not the author’s bias is, in fact, stupefying, or merely that janandonly wants to discredit the author for disagreeing with them. By this metric, calling the author’s bias “stupefying” is a personal attack. So either this entire thread is not constructive and your participation is exacerbating the problem or you’re merely providing cover fire for janandonly. Personally, viewing your other comments in this thread, I’m inclined to believe it’s the later.
    • TAKEMYMONEY 5y ago
      And in context, "just dumb as hell" still isn't an insightful conclusion by the author. There's nothing here that isn't in the Verge article outside of links to buy books by the author/submitter. > viewing your other comments in this thread, I’m inclined to believe it’s the later [sic] I have one other comment as of now...
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]