5 ms·

You missed the first paragraph.

by jsprogrammer 10y ago

jdminhbg 10y ago
I went back and checked. The chorus is still the only piece of evidence in there.
- screature2 10y ago
  See also these references: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip 2. http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/ http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/compan... 3. http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 (page 7, 'Abusive Practices') 4. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-then-and-now-180956382/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-... etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is a pretty well documented terrible thing.
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    Thanks, this is actually informative.
    - thingexplainer 10y ago
      Actually, this comment has _less_ information than the first one. :) If someone decides to share some information on HN, it isn't their responsibility to provide a robust argument and complete set of citations. If you'd like them to you're free to ask politely, or to volunteer your own (or even better, provide counterpoints). But a terse summary of the HN rules is, "add meaningfully to the conversation." The individual you're berating added context that they felt was missing from the original article; this certainly qualifies. The burden of accessing the veracity of the information lies on you. If they provide you with citations, then they're generously offering you a shortcut. If you're having a hard time finding support for their claims, then ask them for a pointer in the right direction. But if you haven't looked at all, then you should decide if this question is worth your time to research, and act accordingly, rather than asking other people to do the legwork for you.
- mikeash 10y ago
  This is a casual internet discussion, not a scientific paper. It is actually acceptable to make a claim without providing citations or other evidence. If you don't believe the claim, either go look it up yourself, ask nicely if they have support, or present your counter-claims. Snidely ignoring the claims because they didn't include cites up front is not cool.
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    I understand that. I wasn't looking for some long peer review process. But the post I was responding to was literally a catalog of just-so stories supported by the existence of a song, like responding to statistics about mistreatment of slaves with a paragraph about how it would be in a slaveowner's best interest to treat them well and here's a line in "Dixie" about happy slaves.

You missed the first paragraph.

jdminhbg 10y ago

I went back and checked. The chorus is still the only piece of evidence in there.

screature2 10y ago
See also these references: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip 2. http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/company-towns/ http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/compan... 3. http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/29047 (page 7, 'Abusive Practices') 4. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-then-and-now-180956382/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-... etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is a pretty well documented terrible thing.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  Thanks, this is actually informative.
  - thingexplainer 10y ago
    Actually, this comment has _less_ information than the first one. :) If someone decides to share some information on HN, it isn't their responsibility to provide a robust argument and complete set of citations. If you'd like them to you're free to ask politely, or to volunteer your own (or even better, provide counterpoints). But a terse summary of the HN rules is, "add meaningfully to the conversation." The individual you're berating added context that they felt was missing from the original article; this certainly qualifies. The burden of accessing the veracity of the information lies on you. If they provide you with citations, then they're generously offering you a shortcut. If you're having a hard time finding support for their claims, then ask them for a pointer in the right direction. But if you haven't looked at all, then you should decide if this question is worth your time to research, and act accordingly, rather than asking other people to do the legwork for you.
mikeash 10y ago
This is a casual internet discussion, not a scientific paper. It is actually acceptable to make a claim without providing citations or other evidence. If you don't believe the claim, either go look it up yourself, ask nicely if they have support, or present your counter-claims. Snidely ignoring the claims because they didn't include cites up front is not cool.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  I understand that. I wasn't looking for some long peer review process. But the post I was responding to was literally a catalog of just-so stories supported by the existence of a song, like responding to statistics about mistreatment of slaves with a paragraph about how it would be in a slaveowner's best interest to treat them well and here's a line in "Dixie" about happy slaves.