3 ms·

Yeah you are papermanning the comment, and that aint cool. Given the strength of the posted article (by Tracing Woodgrains) I cannot see the debate either. It

Yeah you are papermanning the comment, and that aint cool. Given the strength of the posted article (by Tracing Woodgrains) I cannot see the debate either. It is airtight. Non partisan. Nuanced. Stone uncovering. Dozens of references. Led to real world change (albeit unfortunately not in the best way due to politics). It's an A+++ article. I need heavy convincing that it is flawed. Forget how many HN comments because who cared. Is there any debate that Steve Jobs died? No. That got 1000s of comments. Yes I papermanned your paperman there see! Rather than point to an irrelevant factoid, what is the factual issue in that article, if any?

lazyasciiart 1y ago
I think you're missing the context of the article the grandparent was quoting. The article begins: > Air traffic control has been in the news lately, on account of my country's declining ability to do it. Well, that's a long-term trend, resulting from decades of under-investment, severe capture by our increasingly incompetent defense-industrial complex, no small degree of management incompetence in the FAA, and long-lasting effects of Reagan crushing the PATCO strike. But that's just my opinion, you know, maybe airplanes got too woke. So when the grandparent quoted > maybe airplanes got too woke and THEN says "I don't think there's any debate that ATC staffing is a major issue right now, and the FAA really did blow up its hiring pipeline to further DEI goals", what does that quote add? I read an implicit statement that the commenter is siding with this as the cause of the industry problems: "I don't think there's any debate that" [it is, in fact, wokeness that has caused the industry problems]. And I don't think their linked article does make an airtight argument for this. Perhaps you think the steelman version of the comment simply treats the quoted fragment as an accident, or irrelevant to the rest of it, but I disagree.
- coolcase 1y ago
  I see what you are saying. There is so much of this type of rhetoric online I sort of get blind to it sometimes. It's like pointing out a joke someone made, implying it wasn't a joke (you then have to imagine what airplane now means) and then switching to a sorta-sequitir.

lazyasciiart 1y ago

I think you're missing the context of the article the grandparent was quoting. The article begins: > Air traffic control has been in the news lately, on account of my country's declining ability to do it. Well, that's a long-term trend, resulting from decades of under-investment, severe capture by our increasingly incompetent defense-industrial complex, no small degree of management incompetence in the FAA, and long-lasting effects of Reagan crushing the PATCO strike. But that's just my opinion, you know, maybe airplanes got too woke. So when the grandparent quoted > maybe airplanes got too woke and THEN says "I don't think there's any debate that ATC staffing is a major issue right now, and the FAA really did blow up its hiring pipeline to further DEI goals", what does that quote add? I read an implicit statement that the commenter is siding with this as the cause of the industry problems: "I don't think there's any debate that" [it is, in fact, wokeness that has caused the industry problems]. And I don't think their linked article does make an airtight argument for this. Perhaps you think the steelman version of the comment simply treats the quoted fragment as an accident, or irrelevant to the rest of it, but I disagree.

coolcase 1y ago
I see what you are saying. There is so much of this type of rhetoric online I sort of get blind to it sometimes. It's like pointing out a joke someone made, implying it wasn't a joke (you then have to imagine what airplane now means) and then switching to a sorta-sequitir.