3 ms·

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it really applies to a question asking for the veracity of a previously stated claim, especially when the claim is

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it really applies to a question asking for the veracity of a previously stated claim, especially when the claim is actually false. I think there is more than enough bad things the government actually does wrt immigration enforcement, we don't need to start making things up.

orwin 27d ago
In that case, it vastly more productive to say : 'I do believe this is false/poorly presented/a gross generalisation, and would like you to prove me wrong by citing sources'. At least you do not hide behind the "I'm just asking questions", which read as disingenuous like I said, mostly because it's overused rethoric.
- whimsicalism 27d ago
  i think this is an isolated demand for rigor, my way of approaching it was fine, and it is only due to the political valence of the comment i'm replying to that i got downvoted and flagged. take care
- naishoya 27d ago
  a cursory view of whataboutism's... i mean whimsicalism's comment stream has the effect of negating any declarations of serious intent. This is standard practice, take issue with a valid if overstated perspective on a technicality, insist that the current state of the market and technology is acting as it should, and that continued disregard for the abuses/negative outcomes/deteriorating conditions will be solved by further application of the current techniques. The downvotes are perhaps the intended outcome. I might say that I didn't know this when i first responded, but that would be untrue. I engaged in exactly that manner, fully informed of the observable tendencies for engagement. There's no need to try and advise an account as if this 'just asking questions' was a misstep. There is ample substance showing that this account repeatedly declines to take the HN recommended approaches to polite interaction.

orwin 27d ago

In that case, it vastly more productive to say : 'I do believe this is false/poorly presented/a gross generalisation, and would like you to prove me wrong by citing sources'. At least you do not hide behind the "I'm just asking questions", which read as disingenuous like I said, mostly because it's overused rethoric.

whimsicalism 27d ago
i think this is an isolated demand for rigor, my way of approaching it was fine, and it is only due to the political valence of the comment i'm replying to that i got downvoted and flagged. take care
naishoya 27d ago
a cursory view of whataboutism's... i mean whimsicalism's comment stream has the effect of negating any declarations of serious intent. This is standard practice, take issue with a valid if overstated perspective on a technicality, insist that the current state of the market and technology is acting as it should, and that continued disregard for the abuses/negative outcomes/deteriorating conditions will be solved by further application of the current techniques. The downvotes are perhaps the intended outcome. I might say that I didn't know this when i first responded, but that would be untrue. I engaged in exactly that manner, fully informed of the observable tendencies for engagement. There's no need to try and advise an account as if this 'just asking questions' was a misstep. There is ample substance showing that this account repeatedly declines to take the HN recommended approaches to polite interaction.