I find that people who judge a statement, not based on the whole of it’s content, but on the surface aesthetic of it to be wholly smart as a bag of rocks.
I for one don’t see the issue with that “to be fair” statement here. The parent used it merely to announce that they were going to take the counter-point to the most likely community view, i.e., they were going to defend Reddit’s action of not naming Swartz as co-founder. They then proceeded to do so by explaining that Swartz never really played a co-founder role. The comment implied “to be fair [to whoever at Reddit made that decision] and then went on to provide supporting argumentation.
It’s quite different from the lazy use of the phrase, e.g., “to be fair, both sides suck” that you may find in political discussions without supporting arguments, for example.
Ok now you’re just being a troll. Instead of contributing meaningfully to the discussion, you picked up on three words each from the parent and myself, ignored the entirety of our respective arguments, and derailed what could have been an intelligent discussion about Aaron’s actual contributions to early Reddit and turned it into a superficial joust about some words you unilaterally proclaimed to be verboten.
Be better. Be more charitable and thoughtful. Otherwise we’re just pushing people back to Reddit.
I find that people who judge a statement, not based on the whole of it’s content, but on the surface aesthetic of it to be wholly smart as a bag of rocks.
no need to get personal, it’s just an observation
To be fair, his statement was also just an observation.
not one you can prove as easily as the phenomenon i described, though… you can check it… bullshit begins with “to be fair”, and other such phrases…
It also often starts with “I find” or “In my experience”.
Almost like they’re often opinion based, and not fact based.
no, it’s a sophistic device, meant to couch interpretation… followed usually by information about how things are viewed, etc… spin…
you are attempting to insist that what follows is the “fair” perspective… it’s a cheap device used quite frequently…
I for one don’t see the issue with that “to be fair” statement here. The parent used it merely to announce that they were going to take the counter-point to the most likely community view, i.e., they were going to defend Reddit’s action of not naming Swartz as co-founder. They then proceeded to do so by explaining that Swartz never really played a co-founder role. The comment implied “to be fair [to whoever at Reddit made that decision] and then went on to provide supporting argumentation.
It’s quite different from the lazy use of the phrase, e.g., “to be fair, both sides suck” that you may find in political discussions without supporting arguments, for example.
“i for one” is also one of those devices
Ok now you’re just being a troll. Instead of contributing meaningfully to the discussion, you picked up on three words each from the parent and myself, ignored the entirety of our respective arguments, and derailed what could have been an intelligent discussion about Aaron’s actual contributions to early Reddit and turned it into a superficial joust about some words you unilaterally proclaimed to be verboten.
Be better. Be more charitable and thoughtful. Otherwise we’re just pushing people back to Reddit.
My observation is that you’re a criminal. Before you respond, remember it’s not personal, it’s just an observation.
and you’re antagonistic