3 ms·

He provided some very real, substantive counterpoints, none of which you responded to.

by d23 13y ago

avenger123 13y ago
I respectfully disagree with you on this. Viewed from another lens the comment can be considered guilty of the the same charge that the article is being accused of doing.
- saraid216 13y ago
  You can make that charge of any warning about emotional manipulation. And since every warning is a form of emotional manipulation, it's not actually possible to escape it. It's possible to be aware of such manipulation, but it's impossible to avoid doing it.
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
And these were? It read much more as a practice in "no one is unbiased so this is misleading." It also tries to equate drones use against individual targets (a couple individuals generally) with large scale bombing, which is highly disputable, given that it is used more in an assassination sense. The "manipulation" in the comment is pretty blatant.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Two substantive counterpoints I spot in the comment are 1) that telling us about the effects of drone weapons is emotional manipulation, not informative, because the "drone" part doesn't affect it at all and 2) the idea that decisions are hard because the view is "pixelated" applies just as much to the regular kind of warfare.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    1) It is clearly labeled as an opinion piece (First person abounds: I saw, I wish, I knew)... If you are looking for informative, unbiased, hard hitting journalism in an opinion piece you may be looking in the wrong place. 2) Decisions are always hard, even with perfect resolution/clarity, but adding additional handicaps (pixelation) seems like relevant information... I don't see how that is 'counterpoint' in any way?
    - mikeash 13y ago
      1) seems like the pertinent disagreement, here. OK, fine, it's an opinion piece, and we shouldn't expect any sort of actual information from such a thing. Why, then, are we posting and upvoting such crap? Why is anybody defending it?
      - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
        Agreed and agreed. The only reason I chimed in is because labeling an opinion piece as 'manipulation' seems pretty suspect. That is tantamount to saying "anyone who has an opinion I disagree with is manipulating me." Article really shouldn't be on HN in the first place imo. Edit: Spelling... It's hard.

He provided some very real, substantive counterpoints, none of which you responded to.

by d23 13y ago

He provided some very real, substantive counterpoints, none of which you responded to.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. Viewed from another lens the comment can be considered guilty of the the same charge that the article is being accused of doing.

saraid216 13y ago
You can make that charge of any warning about emotional manipulation. And since every warning is a form of emotional manipulation, it's not actually possible to escape it. It's possible to be aware of such manipulation, but it's impossible to avoid doing it.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago

And these were? It read much more as a practice in "no one is unbiased so this is misleading." It also tries to equate drones use against individual targets (a couple individuals generally) with large scale bombing, which is highly disputable, given that it is used more in an assassination sense. The "manipulation" in the comment is pretty blatant.

mikeash 13y ago
Two substantive counterpoints I spot in the comment are 1) that telling us about the effects of drone weapons is emotional manipulation, not informative, because the "drone" part doesn't affect it at all and 2) the idea that decisions are hard because the view is "pixelated" applies just as much to the regular kind of warfare.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  1) It is clearly labeled as an opinion piece (First person abounds: I saw, I wish, I knew)... If you are looking for informative, unbiased, hard hitting journalism in an opinion piece you may be looking in the wrong place. 2) Decisions are always hard, even with perfect resolution/clarity, but adding additional handicaps (pixelation) seems like relevant information... I don't see how that is 'counterpoint' in any way?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    1) seems like the pertinent disagreement, here. OK, fine, it's an opinion piece, and we shouldn't expect any sort of actual information from such a thing. Why, then, are we posting and upvoting such crap? Why is anybody defending it?
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Agreed and agreed. The only reason I chimed in is because labeling an opinion piece as 'manipulation' seems pretty suspect. That is tantamount to saying "anyone who has an opinion I disagree with is manipulating me." Article really shouldn't be on HN in the first place imo. Edit: Spelling... It's hard.