5 ms·

I'm not negatively predisposed to this kind of news, I'm just asking to be provided with the same kind of evidence we'd require if it was a less inflammatory to

I'm not negatively predisposed to this kind of news, I'm just asking to be provided with the same kind of evidence we'd require if it was a less inflammatory topic. I find it very unlikely this evidence is going to appear, however if it does, I'll change my mind. But now, my default hypothesis is this is not true or terribly exaggerated.

civilized 5y ago
> I'm just asking to be provided with the same kind of evidence we'd require if it was a less inflammatory topic. So, if someone said they were verbally abused at their job but didn't provide recordings, would you default to calling it "so unbelievable" and "pure propaganda", as you have called this? And calling it that somehow doesn't amount to being negatively predisposed? Color me skeptical.
- walkhour 5y ago
  > So, if someone said they were verbally abused at their job but didn't provide recordings, would you default to calling it "so unbelievable" and "pure propaganda", as you have called this? This is a bad analogy because presumably if my coworkers were reporting the same stories as the workers in the article I'd would've witnessed the allegations first hand. If they were reporting not so overt aggressions as the one reported in the article in any case I'd still be able to better judge the situation other than purely by their word. So you'd have to give me more specifics. I can guarantee you though if someone was calling my coworkers what the workers in the article were allegedly being called I would've spoken up on the spot and I'd be supporting them in that same article. How many of their coworkers are openly supporting them? Are all of them racist? It's also a bad analogy because the likelihood of something being true changes if you hear it has happened to someone in millions and if you hear it has happened to someone you know. So I do think you're skeptical although I don't see a rational basis for it.
  - civilized 5y ago
    This is a baffling response. I didn't say anything about the abused person being your personal coworker.
    - walkhour 5y ago
      Understood, I still don't fully buy the analogy though, if someone said they were being verbally abused at their job I would give this a higher probability of being true than being verbally abused, for racial reasons, in front of everyone, using slurs from a different era, etc. As you add more conditions the probability tends to zero :). Once you say it was happening in front of more people who weren't reacting, and this was happening on a regular basis, and this was happening in one of the biggest car companies of a country, where a big percentage of the population would never tolerate anything remotely like this, then I'm going to ask for that evidence which you surely already have, since at the very least there must've been many witnesses.

civilized 5y ago

> I'm just asking to be provided with the same kind of evidence we'd require if it was a less inflammatory topic. So, if someone said they were verbally abused at their job but didn't provide recordings, would you default to calling it "so unbelievable" and "pure propaganda", as you have called this? And calling it that somehow doesn't amount to being negatively predisposed? Color me skeptical.

walkhour 5y ago
> So, if someone said they were verbally abused at their job but didn't provide recordings, would you default to calling it "so unbelievable" and "pure propaganda", as you have called this? This is a bad analogy because presumably if my coworkers were reporting the same stories as the workers in the article I'd would've witnessed the allegations first hand. If they were reporting not so overt aggressions as the one reported in the article in any case I'd still be able to better judge the situation other than purely by their word. So you'd have to give me more specifics. I can guarantee you though if someone was calling my coworkers what the workers in the article were allegedly being called I would've spoken up on the spot and I'd be supporting them in that same article. How many of their coworkers are openly supporting them? Are all of them racist? It's also a bad analogy because the likelihood of something being true changes if you hear it has happened to someone in millions and if you hear it has happened to someone you know. So I do think you're skeptical although I don't see a rational basis for it.
- civilized 5y ago
  This is a baffling response. I didn't say anything about the abused person being your personal coworker.
  - walkhour 5y ago
    Understood, I still don't fully buy the analogy though, if someone said they were being verbally abused at their job I would give this a higher probability of being true than being verbally abused, for racial reasons, in front of everyone, using slurs from a different era, etc. As you add more conditions the probability tends to zero :). Once you say it was happening in front of more people who weren't reacting, and this was happening on a regular basis, and this was happening in one of the biggest car companies of a country, where a big percentage of the population would never tolerate anything remotely like this, then I'm going to ask for that evidence which you surely already have, since at the very least there must've been many witnesses.