5 ms·
Are you saying the (albeit original) word "terrorist" wasn't editorializing? All terrorists are persons, but not all persons are terrorists and, realistically,
by vy8vWJlco 14y ago
Are you saying the (albeit original) word "terrorist" wasn't editorializing? All terrorists are persons, but not all persons are terrorists and, realistically, a drone can't tell the difference. Heck, people can't tell... (Remember those old "how to spot a communist" videos? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYl_AH-qyk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYl_AH-qyk ) I'm saying I think the word people is an improvement in objectivity.
- hemancuso 14y agoOf course it was. Not my point.
- vy8vWJlco 14y agoSo, how does an increase in objectivity "confuse the existing debate"?
- hemancuso 14y agoIt confuses the existing debate because there were already 60 minutes of comments, like my own, which reference this editorialization. Now that it has been obfuscated away this is slightly confused.
- vy8vWJlco 14y agoThen that's an interesting statistic in its own right: propaganda is the central debate in such cases. (It's not confusion, by definition.) If it were originally submitted to HN verbatim, with the word "terrorist," I would actually expect more of the focus of the debate to be on that reporting detail.
- ImprovedSilence 14y agoWhen I think "spotting a terrorist", I think seeing a guy put a bomb on the ground, not necessary picking out facial features, which need more resolution. When I hear spot a person, I think "pick out a particular person" [facial features]. This may not be what other people infer, but it's my general gist.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago$>sed "s/a person/a delivery person/"