Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6886970" data-attributes="member: 13107">This issue has been raised several times, with the response Being to look past the words used to the core issue.We can do both: Looking at the words used and saying that the message could have been delivered better is possible while at the same time accepting that harassment is a problem and working to reduce it.&nbsp; One doesn't have to do only one and not do the other.Also, the complaint isn't just about tone.&nbsp; The complaint is about accuracy.&nbsp; A person can reasonably look at a message and try to figure out how true it is.&nbsp; Given the vast quantity of misinformation which abounds on the net, having a strong filter seems necessary.Another complaint (which I previously made) is that the message uses a number of techniques to play rough with emotions.&nbsp; Going for a strong emotional response while sidestepping reason.&nbsp; To go &quot;hey wait a sec&quot; doesn't seem unreasonable.Edit: One response has been to say, &quot;ok, so while not literally true, we can look aside and see that such events occur with enough frequency that we ought to look past the lack of literal truth&quot;.&nbsp; Sure, but this seems to be a very dangerous mode in which to operate.&nbsp; It is very easy to substitute what one believes to be true for actual truth.&nbsp; One has to ground reason in knowledge which is much more concrete.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 6886970, member: 13107"] This issue has been raised several times, with the response Being to look past the words used to the core issue. We can do both: Looking at the words used and saying that the message could have been delivered better is possible while at the same time accepting that harassment is a problem and working to reduce it. One doesn't have to do only one and not do the other. Also, the complaint isn't just about tone. The complaint is about accuracy. A person can reasonably look at a message and try to figure out how true it is. Given the vast quantity of misinformation which abounds on the net, having a strong filter seems necessary. Another complaint (which I previously made) is that the message uses a number of techniques to play rough with emotions. Going for a strong emotional response while sidestepping reason. To go "hey wait a sec" doesn't seem unreasonable. Edit: One response has been to say, "ok, so while not literally true, we can look aside and see that such events occur with enough frequency that we ought to look past the lack of literal truth". Sure, but this seems to be a very dangerous mode in which to operate. It is very easy to substitute what one believes to be true for actual truth. One has to ground reason in knowledge which is much more concrete. Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification