3 ms·

You're getting downvoted not just because before your edit it did actually seem very much like that is in fact your opinion, but also because it's a very stupid

You're getting downvoted not just because before your edit it did actually seem very much like that is in fact your opinion, but also because it's a very stupid question. You're asking about a ridiculous hypothetical situation where a person would be guilty of all the things she smears him with (check the articles), a situation where you ask the opinion of random onlookers to imagine they are somehow magically 100% certain of his guilt as a fact, yet this person is somehow not convicted. I call troll. Maybe not even on purpose. If you have to qualify your question with "I am just genuinely interested ...", I don't think I ever used that phrase outside of circumstances where I was purposefully trolling.

kleiba 14y ago
Thanks for your answer. I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being genuinely interested while I'm actually not. You're making a good point about how the situation I described is hypothetical. However, I did not write that you as an onlooker would be 100% convinced that all of the things she claims were true. The article actually only names some accusations she makes, and I referred to these in my original question. Therefore, the things she posts may in parts be correct in my thought experiment, and the onlooker knows about that, while other parts of her posts may still be incorrect ("smear"). Note that even with the actual article, i.e., without any knowledge about what actually happened other than what is written in the article, we are all "random onlookers". And we're all forming opinions one way or the other when we read something like this. I am interested to know how these opinions would perhaps be influenced if we had additional knowledge that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. The thought experiment I sketched certainly is on an extreme end of the spectrum. If anything in my post was purposeful, then that it was hypothetical. Since your reply I'm thinking now that perhaps it was indeed "ridiculous" to think something like this up. But again, it wasn't my intention at all to troll. I appreciate that you took the time to answer.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Why concern yourself with these hypotheticals? I enjoy tech prognostication, but there are so many ways for people to be terrible to each other in reality that dwelling seems unnecessary.
  - kleiba 14y ago
    Well, different people find different things interesting. For instance, I might ask: "why concern yourself with Twilight", yet there are many devout fans of the shows.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      Devils' advocacy for the sake of devils' advocacy seems a bit onanistic, or worse when it comes to seeing sinister plans in the eyes of victims. I find it interesting to ~do~ it in my own head, plenty of "what if?"s, but targeting victims of various crimes with "what if they deserved their abuse?" sans-evidence doesn't come off as very healthy. It goes in a darker direction than most brainstorming, IMO.

kleiba 14y ago

Thanks for your answer. I see how my post could be perceived as trolling while in fact that was not my intention at all. I certainly did not write about being genuinely interested while I'm actually not. You're making a good point about how the situation I described is hypothetical. However, I did not write that you as an onlooker would be 100% convinced that all of the things she claims were true. The article actually only names some accusations she makes, and I referred to these in my original question. Therefore, the things she posts may in parts be correct in my thought experiment, and the onlooker knows about that, while other parts of her posts may still be incorrect ("smear"). Note that even with the actual article, i.e., without any knowledge about what actually happened other than what is written in the article, we are all "random onlookers". And we're all forming opinions one way or the other when we read something like this. I am interested to know how these opinions would perhaps be influenced if we had additional knowledge that isn't explicitly mentioned in the article. The thought experiment I sketched certainly is on an extreme end of the spectrum. If anything in my post was purposeful, then that it was hypothetical. Since your reply I'm thinking now that perhaps it was indeed "ridiculous" to think something like this up. But again, it wasn't my intention at all to troll. I appreciate that you took the time to answer.

illuminate 14y ago
Why concern yourself with these hypotheticals? I enjoy tech prognostication, but there are so many ways for people to be terrible to each other in reality that dwelling seems unnecessary.
- kleiba 14y ago
  Well, different people find different things interesting. For instance, I might ask: "why concern yourself with Twilight", yet there are many devout fans of the shows.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Devils' advocacy for the sake of devils' advocacy seems a bit onanistic, or worse when it comes to seeing sinister plans in the eyes of victims. I find it interesting to ~do~ it in my own head, plenty of "what if?"s, but targeting victims of various crimes with "what if they deserved their abuse?" sans-evidence doesn't come off as very healthy. It goes in a darker direction than most brainstorming, IMO.