3 ms·
It sure is. It makes me sad though that, depending on whatever side you are on, many of the commenters here don't seem to be so charitable and just assume zero
by hammock 4y ago
It sure is. It makes me sad though that, depending on whatever side you are on, many of the commenters here don't seem to be so charitable and just assume zero nuance to the "other side's" position (of course, their side has ALL the nuance, e.g. only the good regulation, none of the bad, exactly the right amount and not too much, etc).
- godelski 4y agoI don't mean to offend you, but reading the comments it was specifically yours where it seemed the nuance was removed. AequitasOmnibus was saying that we need regulation but to do it with care. There's nuance in that. Your comment was pretty reactionary and really just pointed at (near) universally disliked companies and asked how they were ethical. You set the bar for rebuttal pretty low since there simply needs to be a single proof of contradiction. This may not have been the thought you were trying to express but it is clear that I'm not the only one that interpreted your comment in this manner (and I think it should be clear to you what happened here). I want to promote better discussions and it seems like you do too, so I want to give some feedback so we can hopefully have better ones in the future and actually discuss what we want to discuss instead of fighting. I hope this comment helps.