3 ms·
Hmm, alright. I feel like I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from. Yes, the original comment pointed out o
by 37 5y ago
Hmm, alright. I feel like I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from. Yes, the original comment pointed out one word. But clearly there was more than just that one word that held the sentiment. It's like picking up a leaf from an oak tree and saying "it's an oak tree" and then you say "well, that was only one leaf".
Zooming out, and reading the abstract for a third time, I can clearly see the implicit bias. (I'm not saying people are wrong for how they feel, (I actually feel the same way) I'm just saying it's not science. Of course the rest of the paper may be a bunch of great science, but I, and others, are just asking to keep the emotion out of the lab.)
- tjr225 5y agoI only used the word 'sad' as an example... I can see how that is unclear. The entire abstract seemed very editorialized to me. And I feel the same way that you do, too. Re-read the abstract; the word "sad" is only a facet of the editorialized nature of the thing.
- pvg 5y agoBut clearly there was more than just that one word that held the sentiment. The comment doesn't show that, it just complains about the one word. I can clearly see the implicit bias. [...] I'm just saying it's not science. It's a big claim that's not much related to the post. Can it be an interesting topic of discussion? Absolutely. But the onus is on the commenter to support it, to make it interesting, to present some sort of argument, to spur some kind of interesting discussion. Throwaway comments about a single word don't do that which is why they are discouraged.