5 ms·
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
by 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 agoTwo 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 ago1) 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 ago1) 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 agoAgreed 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.