4 ms·

I bet your use of passive-aggressive condescension wins all your arguments for you, and wins you the respect of all your peers. Now, if you said that 35 isn't

I bet your use of passive-aggressive condescension wins all your arguments for you, and wins you the respect of all your peers. Now, if you said that 35 isn't half a lifetime, and that he'll be about 60 when he gets out, how doesn't that minimize the focus on the effect those 35 years of incarceration actually have on Manning? Were you just so insensitive an engineer that you felt the cold, literal correction was somehow benefiting the conversation?

sp332 13y ago
Your other comment said I wasn't being logical enough. Now I'm being too logical? I didn't think it was very passive either. That leaves... respect of my peers. OK, I have a lot of time on my hands so I'm game: I think that exaggeration of the effect of Manning's leaks is what led to the overly harsh sentence in the first place. The least we could do in discussing it is not make the same mistake. I think Manning's sentence is much too long. But at the same time, I don't think misrepresenting how harsh it is does any side of the argument any good. I'm sensitive enough to realize that if we want reasonable sentences, we will have to be honest about how harsh a sentence really is. I can also predict that critics will write us off as irrational or whiny if we make a habit of overreacting every time something happens we don't like. I'm not insensitive. On the contrary, I can imagine much worse sentences that could have been handed down, up to and including capital punishment for treason. As crushing as the final sentence must be to Manning and those near him, I can also understand the coping mechanisms they will resort to to deal with it. One of those is that the sentence is not as bad as it could have been.