6 ms·
> ... is a privileged viewpoint, and offensive to me. "Privileged"? I'm not sure how or why you chose to take offense, but I'm surprised that anything about t
by mjolk 10y ago
> ... is a privileged viewpoint, and offensive to me.
"Privileged"?
I'm not sure how or why you chose to take offense, but I'm surprised that anything about that was even slightly controversial.
> The author doesn't have to prove to your satisfaction that this happened to her to write this article
You're right, but that doesn't mean I have to believe what the author claims and doesn't mean I can't respond to it. The comment section doesn't exist to serve as an echo chamber.
- dongslol 10y agoI feel like you're getting downvoted to death for the same reason atheists are more disliked than agnostics: "there is no god" is more offensive than "there's insufficient evidence that there is a god." Personally I agree with what I think is your view, that in the absence of sufficient evidence, we should disbelieve (rather than neutrally suspend judgment) proportionate to the strength of the claim itself. If you'd said "we lack sufficient evidence to believe Amy," I think you would've just been yelled at, not flagged.