3 ms·

Notwithstanding any relevance here, the entire concept of 'manipulation' is to put forth an easy to follow line of logic that is at once intuitively appealing a

by 001sky 12y ago

Notwithstanding any relevance here, the entire concept of 'manipulation' is to put forth an easy to follow line of logic that is at once intuitively appealing and deliberately false. With respect to context, the principals involved are too sophisticated to be treated as simpletons-- the principal owners of Reddit are the owners Conde Nast et al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Only simpletons would simply tell the truth? I don't understand what you mean. All I'm saying is that I have direct, personal experience with Sam, and it seems more likely that we didn't visit the moon than that Sam is manipulative in a "I'm telling real lies that people would care about if discovered" sort of way. That'd make pg manipulative by definition, for one, since he appointed Sam as his successor. Everyone is manipulative to an extent, but going on record with "Yes, this really did happen in this way" is the line between social graces and the type of manipulation people spend their lives trying to avoid. So are we fools for believing them? Or, given the propensity of people to call people sheeple, do you think that maybe the simplest explanation might be the better one here?
- 001sky 12y ago
  PG and SAMA have good facts I'm sure -- but those are not interchangable with their public writings. Divining one from the other is at best a speculative enterprise. And in this case, poor logic is not a substitute for good facts.
- lmm 12y ago
  > it seems more likely that we didn't visit the moon than that Sam is manipulative in a "I'm telling real lies that people would care about if discovered" sort of way All the best manipulators seem that way; most people vastly overestimate their own ability to judge character. (I don't have a viewpoint on the larger question, but "seemed decent when I personally met him" is not at all convincing)

by 001sky 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago

Only simpletons would simply tell the truth? I don't understand what you mean. All I'm saying is that I have direct, personal experience with Sam, and it seems more likely that we didn't visit the moon than that Sam is manipulative in a "I'm telling real lies that people would care about if discovered" sort of way. That'd make pg manipulative by definition, for one, since he appointed Sam as his successor. Everyone is manipulative to an extent, but going on record with "Yes, this really did happen in this way" is the line between social graces and the type of manipulation people spend their lives trying to avoid. So are we fools for believing them? Or, given the propensity of people to call people sheeple, do you think that maybe the simplest explanation might be the better one here?

001sky 12y ago
PG and SAMA have good facts I'm sure -- but those are not interchangable with their public writings. Divining one from the other is at best a speculative enterprise. And in this case, poor logic is not a substitute for good facts.
lmm 12y ago
> it seems more likely that we didn't visit the moon than that Sam is manipulative in a "I'm telling real lies that people would care about if discovered" sort of way All the best manipulators seem that way; most people vastly overestimate their own ability to judge character. (I don't have a viewpoint on the larger question, but "seemed decent when I personally met him" is not at all convincing)