| ▲ | mustaphah 5 days ago |
| > You're all extremely clever and I can't seem to understand how you missed thinking about such a simple edge case [...] I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose to give some (their?) agents extra leverage. Edit #1: I didn't mean to imply bad intent; just thinking out loud. Edit #2: Please, downvote responsibly. I deserve every one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y |
|
| ▲ | gchamonlive 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I didn't mean to imply bad intent > I wouldn't be surprised if they left this loophole on purpose You didn't imply bad intent, you outright suggested it. |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He means he doesn't say it was necessarily bad intent, but mentions it as a possibility ("thinking out loud"). | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Thinking out loud isn't a free pass to say stuff without consequences. Sure we are all protected under free speech, but free speech doesn't remove the meaning and the impact words have in the world. |
| |
| ▲ | mustaphah 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I could've phrased it better. | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You could rewrite it a 1000 times, if the underlying idea is the same, suggesting something you don't know it's true, the outcome would be the same. Or did you mean something else? What was your intention with the message? | | |
| ▲ | mustaphah 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I meant it as a hint for anyone inclined to dig deeper. It's a possibility rather than something we can confidently dismiss. | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If it's a possibility and you don't want to dig deeper better to sit out and not comment anything at all, lest you risk defamation. Thinking out loud also doesn't make defamation acceptable. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "It's probably not X, but we should consider X as we look at this." and "I feel like this might be X but I'm 50:50 on it." are not anywhere near defamation. You have to get a lot closer to certainty before it's an issue. And listing out "a possibility but you don't want to dig deeper" is often a good contribution to a conversation. In this case they worded it badly, but the basic idea of the comment isn't awful. | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That someone in the team might not have done it on purpose, but left it for convenience? How does that benefit the debate? I really fail to see any silver lining in doing such speculative comments without any substance whatsoever to back it up. |
| |
| ▲ | TheDong 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's fine, this is an american site so JAQing is in fact safe under free speech. You're welcome to ask b "would none rid me of this meddlesome priest" with no fear | | |
| ▲ | gchamonlive 4 days ago | parent [-] | | And I'm protected under free speech to try to educate people about good manners, so it's fine too. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | faangguyindia 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| never attribute something to malice which can be attributed to incompetence. Basically, this has been utilized plenty of times by some really smart folk to get what they want. |
|
| ▲ | cjsaltlake 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We absolutely did not. |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course that's what a team that did it on purpose would also say :) | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
