7 ms·
Becoming more common lately? Or it is becoming more apparent to you lately? I would like a citation on wrongful prosecution activities.
by kiba 13y ago
Becoming more common lately? Or it is becoming more apparent to you lately? I would like a citation on wrongful prosecution activities.
- jasallen 13y agoThis isn't a reference library. In the absence of a citation, I think its perfectly acceptable to automatically read that (or any comment post or blog) as "My perception is..." and move on without criticizing.
- tome 13y agoI think it's perfectly acceptable to ask that perceptions be stated explicitly as such, rather than leaving statements open to easy misinterpretation.
- ctdonath 13y agoI think it's perfectly absurd to expect that a brief intelligent comment on a social chat board be expected to include encyclopedic completeness and citations to ward off every conceivable casual wanton misinterpretation.
- tome 13y agoWhat's wrong with saying "This seems to be becoming a lot more common lately" rather than "This is becoming a lot more common lately"?
- jasonlotito 13y agoWhat's wrong with saying "This is becoming a lot more common lately" and without any supporting evidence, assuming opinion, rather than "This seems to be becoming a lot more common lately"? I think you would do well to answer that question first, as your question presupposes this question has already been answered, when it fact it has not. Indeed, you have broken your own rule and left your comment open for easy misinterpretation.
- tome 13y agoWell, I prefer the latter because it leads to a community where I can take more posts at face value and thus learn quicker. I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage this kind of behaviour. It seems to have very little cost. > Indeed, you have broken your own rule and left your comment open for easy misinterpretation. Have I? What's easy to misinterpret?
- chc 13y agoI think to most people, the fact that a comment is a statement of a person's opinion is part of the face value.
- tome 13y agoIf that's the culture of HN then I bow to it. However, I've never interpreted our community to be like that. On this forum I don't expect to hear The discrepancy between how much jail time the people who upset the government get, and the people who commit real crimes is getting bigger without evidence any more than I expect to hear database server X is becoming faster than database server Y without evidence.
- willurd 13y agoMost people? Or are you projecting. I would like a citation on this.
- jasonlotito 13y agoAs I said: I think you would do well to answer that question first, as your question presupposes this question has already been answered, when it fact it has not. Asking why X is superior to Y is nothing more than an attempt to place the burden on someone else rather than yourself. You presupposed that Y is superior to X without any proof being offered. It's akin to me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife," or other questions like that. > Have I? What's easy to misinterpret? So, specifically, with your statements, you make it seem like you've already proven your side, when in fact, you've done no such thing. It's disingenuous and manipulative. So, either you meant to be that way (dishonest), or you simply made a mistake of not backing up your opinion (What you are arguing against). So, considering the later is what you are arguing against, it's very easy to assume you are simply trying to be dishonest. I'd like to think better of HN, and assume that people generally speak their opinion, and only assume they are speaking fact when they are providing sources or it's something I also know about. > Well, I prefer the latter because it leads to a community where I can take more posts at face value and thus learn quicker. Their is asking for clarification, and asking for clarification rudely, which is what I saw happening, as did others, I imagine. Their is value in asking for citations, no one questions that. The GP was clearly stating an opinion based on his own observations. The question in response was of little value because it was merely being antagonistic. > I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage this kind of behaviour. Peppering phrases with weasel words? People should just say what they think, rather than qualify every statement with qualifying statements. Case in point: > It seems to have very little cost. Citation needed.
- ctdonath 13y agoNothing. What is wrong is nitpicking apart the nuanced difference when it was just a casual intelligent comment made in a social setting, where reasonable expectation is to get the point rather than belabor its numerous subtle variants pursuant to wanton misinterpretation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- saraid216 13y agoPersonally, I've given up on misinterpretation and just assume bad faith when it comes to comments shaped like the thread parent's. I dismiss and, by virtue of scrolling down, take a look at the respondents to see if anyone has anything useful to sub in.
- naasking 13y agoWell, as but one example, computer crimes are more harshly punished than in the past, and sometimes get harsher sentences than causing bodily harm.
- dragontamer 13y agoAnd for another, we used to wait till people were sentenced / punished before claiming that they were punished. This is an article about their prosecution. Prosecutors push for the maximum sentence that they can possibly get, and have done so since the dawn of time. Whether or not they are _actually_ sentenced depends on the judge. As far as I can tell, this is a hit-piece by the defense team of these three individuals to drum up public support, and hope for a reduced sentence.
- coldtea 13y ago>And for another, we used to wait till people were sentenced / punished before claiming that they were punished. This is an article about their prosecution. Prosecutors push for the maximum sentence that they can possibly get, and have done so since the dawn of time. Whether or not they are _actually_ sentenced depends on the judge. One: how did that work out for Aaron Swartz? I'm asking because the same BS was said in the defence of the prosecutors actions then. Second: Citation needed, that prosecutors have "since the dawn of time" pushed for the same kind of sentences in the same kind of cases. Merely pushing for a little more doesn't qualify -- this is an extreme blow up of the actual offence here. Third: I'm appalled by your casual dismissal of this, as "it's how it's always been". Even with the actual sentencing depending on the judge, this over-blowing of offences is a moral and legal problem that should stop. The prosecutors should push for the sentence that is appropriate to the crime, as they perceive it, not to "the maximum sentence they can possibly get". Their job is to serve justice, not to put as many people in jail as they can. Fourth: Who said that asking for the "maximum sentence" is a harmless tactic? Who said it doesn't impact the jury's decision and the sentence that the judge will give? If the offence is something that should get 10 years in prison, and they ask for life, then maybe this will provoke a sentence of 15 years. The same tactic also can lead to innocent people plea to guilty, instead of risking a potential 5 or 10 years in prison (where they would actually take their chance for their actual lower appropriate sentence).
- einhverfr 13y agoI think the reference is to the war on whistleblowers. That part is more common. Also it is true that protesters are treated worse more recently than they have been for a few decades. The problem though is that if you go back more than a few decades, it is not clear the trend is downward so much as cyclical.