Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8639495" data-attributes="member: 177">I think LaNasa and Hovermale have had that response.&nbsp; But Ernie, after one non-apology, largely retired from the field.&nbsp; So, individuals in the nuTSR orbit do not uniformly match your group profile.&nbsp; Almost as if they were individual people, who didn't all behave exactly the same, such that you can't judge the individuals based on one's impression of the whole.Especially when, as far as we are aware, Johnson hasn't been a part of nuTSR's responses in the past.&nbsp; He has not so far been part of the group you've &quot;profiled&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;This guy we haven't heard from before will act like the others,&quot; isn't a strong line of reasoning.&nbsp; It is, in fact, a particularly weak line. In short, you are able to put together a plausible narrative for yourself that fits your armchair psychological profile of people you've never met, supporting a preconceived impression of what is happening.The very idea that one should approach determining guilt or innocence based on reaction to accusation or public pressure is misguided.&nbsp; Guilt should be assessed based on evidence (which, for our purposes, is pretty good) not based on what we think their reaction &quot;should be.&quot;Let me be clear - I am not arguing that this guy didn't post horrible stuff.&nbsp; I went and looked at it myself.&nbsp; I just think that our online community should not engage in what you are doing here.&nbsp; There's already evidence.&nbsp; Manufacturing more &quot;evidence&quot; based on faulty reasoning is a bad idea.And, by the way, it doesn't have to be about &quot;self care&quot;.&nbsp; Damage control is not dependent on being guilty, it is dependent on people thinking you are guilty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8639495, member: 177"] I think LaNasa and Hovermale have had that response. But Ernie, after one non-apology, largely retired from the field. So, individuals in the nuTSR orbit do not uniformly match your group profile. Almost as if they were individual people, who didn't all behave exactly the same, such that you can't judge the individuals based on one's impression of the whole. Especially when, as far as we are aware, Johnson [I]hasn't been a part of nuTSR's responses in the past[/I]. He has not so far been part of the group you've "profiled". "This guy we haven't heard from before will act like the others," isn't a strong line of reasoning. It is, in fact, a particularly weak line. In short, you are able to put together a plausible narrative for yourself that fits your armchair psychological profile of people you've never met, supporting a preconceived impression of what is happening. The very idea that one should approach determining guilt or innocence based on reaction to accusation or public pressure is misguided. Guilt should be assessed based on evidence (which, for our purposes, is pretty good) not based on what we think their reaction "should be." Let me be clear - I am not arguing that this guy didn't post horrible stuff. I went and looked at it myself. I just think that our online community should not engage in what you are doing here. There's already evidence. Manufacturing more "evidence" based on faulty reasoning is a bad idea. And, by the way, it doesn't have to be about "self care". Damage control is not dependent on being guilty, it is dependent on people thinking you are guilty. [/QUOTE]

Verification