4 ms·
I mean... this comment thread is literally about whether it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not "hysterical" to say the guy we know the
by SilverBirch 4y ago
I mean... this comment thread is literally about whether it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not "hysterical" to say the guy we know the guy didn't like the account, he'd tried to get it removed before, and despite him saying he wouldn't remove it, he probably has, because he's lied before. You're reading a load of emotion into something that doesn't have to be emotional. It's just a pretty obvious point that once you give someone the benefit of the doubt and they showed they don't deserve it, you probably shouldn't give it to them again. Otherwise, as one of the previous posters pointed out, you're going to continually reserve judgement against what is clearly a bad actor.
It's a pretty simple point about an iterated game.
- fleddr 4y agoThe point is indeed simple: you don't know. In the period when you don't know something, the rational thing is to wait until you do. Everything else is speculation. You're free to speculate as much as you want, but it's just guess work. The only thing I objected to is to turn guess work into confident conclusions, and presenting them as fact.
- SilverBirch 4y agoWhat I’m saying is we know enough. This isn’t a court of law, we’re allowed to surmise what is true from the facts we know.