4 ms·

It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case

by dash2 5y ago

It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”.

kragen 5y ago
Normally I would do that, and I considered that, but the only possible alternative to you lying in this case would be that you didn't notice the three separate rather conspicuous links in the sentence you quoted, or didn't realize they were links to supporting information, or that they weren't there when you read the article, perhaps because Johnstone added them after you read it. This seemed extremely implausible to me. If that were the case, presumably you would have said, "I didn't see those links" instead of just "It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”." Therefore the presumption of good faith in this case has been comprehensively overcome. Blitzkrieged, really. And you still haven't expressed any remorse, just complained that it's ill-mannered of me to point out your lie. Perhaps I shouldn't have talked about my evaluation of the reliability of those three articles, because the point about your lying is that, even if all three of those articles were nothing but lies, Johnstone's assertion still wouldn't be "unsupported", as you falsely claimed it was. It would be "supported only by lies". But I mentioned my evaluation of the reliability because I think the question of whether what's going on in Ukraine is much more important than the question of whether you were lying about what Johnstone said. Which, to be clear, you were. Please own up to it and don't do it again.
- dash2 5y ago
  Or, I read the links and thought their arguments were ridiculous. I’ll stop this conversation here: I see no point in arguing with someone who won’t offer me the basic assumption of good faith.
  - kragen 5y ago
    That's not a valid reason for asserting that the links weren't there at all.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The assumption of good faith has to be earned, it's not a right. On this site users are mostly anonymous and so there is a rule that you assume good faith by default but that is not a license to say whatever you like and then get upset when called on it. It's especially vital for upholding the default assumption of good faith that people try hard to be precise in their words. In this case you said clearly that the assertions were unsupported which doesn't mean "supported but I don't like it". You did in fact say something untrue and if that's because you use language badly, that's a problem you are creating for everyone else. So stop it - admit your claim was wrong and move on to explaining why you don't like the support used.

by dash2 5y ago

kragen 5y ago

Normally I would do that, and I considered that, but the only possible alternative to you lying in this case would be that you didn't notice the three separate rather conspicuous links in the sentence you quoted, or didn't realize they were links to supporting information, or that they weren't there when you read the article, perhaps because Johnstone added them after you read it. This seemed extremely implausible to me. If that were the case, presumably you would have said, "I didn't see those links" instead of just "It’s a good idea, and IIRC part of this site’s guidelines, to “assume good faith”. If you find the linked articles more convincing than I do in making the case that NATO had a hand in starting this war, then maybe say “I disagree” rather than “you are lying”." Therefore the presumption of good faith in this case has been comprehensively overcome. Blitzkrieged, really. And you still haven't expressed any remorse, just complained that it's ill-mannered of me to point out your lie. Perhaps I shouldn't have talked about my evaluation of the reliability of those three articles, because the point about your lying is that, even if all three of those articles were nothing but lies, Johnstone's assertion still wouldn't be "unsupported", as you falsely claimed it was. It would be "supported only by lies". But I mentioned my evaluation of the reliability because I think the question of whether what's going on in Ukraine is much more important than the question of whether you were lying about what Johnstone said. Which, to be clear, you were. Please own up to it and don't do it again.

dash2 5y ago
Or, I read the links and thought their arguments were ridiculous. I’ll stop this conversation here: I see no point in arguing with someone who won’t offer me the basic assumption of good faith.
- kragen 5y ago
  That's not a valid reason for asserting that the links weren't there at all.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The assumption of good faith has to be earned, it's not a right. On this site users are mostly anonymous and so there is a rule that you assume good faith by default but that is not a license to say whatever you like and then get upset when called on it. It's especially vital for upholding the default assumption of good faith that people try hard to be precise in their words. In this case you said clearly that the assertions were unsupported which doesn't mean "supported but I don't like it". You did in fact say something untrue and if that's because you use language badly, that's a problem you are creating for everyone else. So stop it - admit your claim was wrong and move on to explaining why you don't like the support used.