3 ms·

A reasonably charitable interpretation of OP's comment suggests they were not suggesting that at all.

• aydyn 4y ago
  Nonsense. That is what they were saying.
• kelnos 4y ago
  I don't see that at all, and invoking "charitable interpretation" is a bit disingenuous. Why bring up the context if not to suggest that this arrest was justified because of the person's ideology?
  • epgui 4y ago
    I don't think it's ever disingenuous to invoke charitable interpretation when an uncharitable interpretation is made. The comment was giving context around why the guy's actions might be considered morally reprehensible (or more simply, "wrong"), and was not in any way suggesting that that made an arrest justified. In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made. If the reader makes that leap (here despite the comment author's warning), then that's on the reader, and it's exactly why charitable interpretation is important. Without charitable interpretation, people put words in each others' mouths, talk past each other, or don't hear each other. It's essential to civil discourse in general: most of what most people write or say will be less than perfect, so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness. So no, it's not disingenuous at all to bring this up. (But isn't doing this exhausting? My goodness is it ever! Yes.) Note, crucially, that a "charitable interpretation" is not necessarily the "most likely interpretation" or "the interpretation you believe is the most accurate". It is the interpretation that puts the other person in the most favourable light, while remaining mostly (yes, this often requires flexibility and some approximation) logically consistent with what was actually said or written. In this particular case, a charitable interpretation can be made by simply not putting words in the author's mouth: his text is entirely consistent with the charitable interpretation.
    • kelnos 4y ago
      "Disingenuous" was definitely an unfair characterization, and I apologize for that. > In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made. I don't think it's fair to prime someone with a bunch of negative information, and then turn around and say "no, no! I'm not trying to prejudice your thinking at all!" To me, I think all this context was entirely unnecessary. This article is able police excess -- or, really, legal excess. I would much rather have a discussion about whether or not the sorts of laws that lead to arrests like this are reasonable and acceptable in a free society. Instead -- and I agree that doing this is exhausting! -- we are not only muddying the waters by giving people an excuse to say "yeah, but this person deserved it because they are anti-trans", but we are going into a meta-meta discussion about whether or not someone meant to muddy the waters or not. Which, IMO, is entirely irrelevant: the waters have been muddied, and this entire subthread is a stupid waste of time, time that I regret wasting (but, given who I am, I know I will waste again sometime in the future). To me, the point is not "this guy said some stuff that muddied the waters, but he didn't intend to muddy the waters, so it's ok". The point is that the waters have been muddied with irrelevant context, and instead of having an interesting discussion about freedom of speech, we're talking about how shitty an anti-trans group is. Which, ok, sure, this group does indeed seem pretty shitty, but I don't come to HN because I want to get into a mood where need to yet again get pissed at shitty transphobic people. > so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness. This two-way communication is a two-way street. We should not put all of the burden on the reader. The author should have a responsibility to be as clear as possible, and avoid posting things that are guaranteed to throw a discussion off-topic.
      • epgui 4y ago
        I don't disagree! I think a fairer criticism of the parent comment might have been, for example, something like: "The relevant question is not whether this person did something reprehensible or wrong or even harmful, but rather whether the police's actions were proportional, or whether there was a legal basis for an arrest... Or even whether the current legal framework is how it ought to be." The goal in the above paragraph is to: - neutralize any unfair rhetorical impact of the parent comment - allow for the parent comment to be read charitably - argue directly to the relevance of the point, and help refocus or reframe the discussion Now query whether I'd be successful at any of this... But I think that's how I would approach it!