6 ms·

I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven

I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven't been published yet. Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot. But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.

drewbug01 6y ago
> I'm talking about what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us is a very poorly executed attempt at damage control - over an article that has not been published - and we really must remember that. If we simply accept what Coinbase has published as truth, then it frames everything differently. But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. > You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I believe you misunderstand my motives. How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. What I have been saying (in more diplomatic language) is that “this smells like a crock of shit from Coinbase,” and I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them. It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. But I’m also trying to poke holes at the corporate speak, and trying to understand what they’re saying and what they’re not saying. And of course, it’s partly speculation! But what else could it be? They published a spin piece proclaiming innocence regarding the contents of an unpublished article. Of course we’re in the realm of speculation; the whole game started there the moment they published this letter. > their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Alleging hundreds of examples of a complete disregard to journalistic integrity requires proof, honestly. It’s a pretty hefty claim that I wouldn’t accept at face value (nobody should). If it’s your opinion, that’s fine - but it’s not fact unless you can point to some evidence. Extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on the party making the claims. > But NYT lies. A lot. Friend, this is not enlightened discourse. That’s an opinion, and not a well-substantiated one.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > we really must remember that Do we? Your opinion that is poorly executed doesn't actually mean that it is. > But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. And...? God forbid their wanting to control the narrative about... Themselves? I'm not seeing the problem there. > They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly. > How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question. > I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them Reading your comments, it seems more like a bias in favor of the NYT et al what is predisposing you to distrust them. Of course, nothing wrong with that. If you feel like they properly represent the truth of your views, not supporting them would be incongruous. But that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees about how well they represent the truth of the matter has to share your opinion. Indeed, sharing your opinion would be incongruous in that case. > It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish". > it’s partly speculation It's entirely speculation.
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    > But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly. Yes - I believe you did read it incorrectly. I am personally inclined to trust the NYT more than the words of a CEO of a tech company; I personally put more trust in the former rather than the latter. As you’ve eloquently laid out - that’s a personal choice I make, and I own that. But I am not declaiming in my comment that the NYT should be inherently trusted by all. Now - if you want to ask me that question directly: I do think that the NYT is more trustworthy than Coinbase. And if you want my opinion on the matter, yeah - I think you should trust the NYT too! But: that simply wasn’t what I said in my original comment. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of it at all. > You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question. I would answer it by saying you’ve missed the forest for the trees. I was not alleging that the article will be “fundamental truth” - in the sense that every word it says will be true. Rather, my comments in context imply that I trust there will be at least some truth in the article - and that the words Coinbase published serve to highlight the presumed core of truth in the article. What you’ve said here is nitpicking at a word and ignoring how it’s used in the context of my words as a whole, and doesn’t move the conversation forward. > This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish". You’re right; this is devolving into name-calling. And I stand by my usage of “amateurish”. That is a perfectly acceptable word to use in a discussion here, and it’s not even as imprecise as you claim. If you have questions about what it means, of course, do ask. I’m not going to engage further on this thread. You’re nit-picking at words here in a really unkind way.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

drewbug01 6y ago

> I'm talking about what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us is a very poorly executed attempt at damage control - over an article that has not been published - and we really must remember that. If we simply accept what Coinbase has published as truth, then it frames everything differently. But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. > You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I believe you misunderstand my motives. How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. What I have been saying (in more diplomatic language) is that “this smells like a crock of shit from Coinbase,” and I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them. It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. But I’m also trying to poke holes at the corporate speak, and trying to understand what they’re saying and what they’re not saying. And of course, it’s partly speculation! But what else could it be? They published a spin piece proclaiming innocence regarding the contents of an unpublished article. Of course we’re in the realm of speculation; the whole game started there the moment they published this letter. > their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Alleging hundreds of examples of a complete disregard to journalistic integrity requires proof, honestly. It’s a pretty hefty claim that I wouldn’t accept at face value (nobody should). If it’s your opinion, that’s fine - but it’s not fact unless you can point to some evidence. Extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on the party making the claims. > But NYT lies. A lot. Friend, this is not enlightened discourse. That’s an opinion, and not a well-substantiated one.

julianmarq 6y ago
> we really must remember that Do we? Your opinion that is poorly executed doesn't actually mean that it is. > But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. And...? God forbid their wanting to control the narrative about... Themselves? I'm not seeing the problem there. > They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism. But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly. > How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical. You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question. > I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them Reading your comments, it seems more like a bias in favor of the NYT et al what is predisposing you to distrust them. Of course, nothing wrong with that. If you feel like they properly represent the truth of your views, not supporting them would be incongruous. But that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees about how well they represent the truth of the matter has to share your opinion. Indeed, sharing your opinion would be incongruous in that case. > It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly. This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish". > it’s partly speculation It's entirely speculation.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  > But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly. Yes - I believe you did read it incorrectly. I am personally inclined to trust the NYT more than the words of a CEO of a tech company; I personally put more trust in the former rather than the latter. As you’ve eloquently laid out - that’s a personal choice I make, and I own that. But I am not declaiming in my comment that the NYT should be inherently trusted by all. Now - if you want to ask me that question directly: I do think that the NYT is more trustworthy than Coinbase. And if you want my opinion on the matter, yeah - I think you should trust the NYT too! But: that simply wasn’t what I said in my original comment. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of it at all. > You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question. I would answer it by saying you’ve missed the forest for the trees. I was not alleging that the article will be “fundamental truth” - in the sense that every word it says will be true. Rather, my comments in context imply that I trust there will be at least some truth in the article - and that the words Coinbase published serve to highlight the presumed core of truth in the article. What you’ve said here is nitpicking at a word and ignoring how it’s used in the context of my words as a whole, and doesn’t move the conversation forward. > This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish". You’re right; this is devolving into name-calling. And I stand by my usage of “amateurish”. That is a perfectly acceptable word to use in a discussion here, and it’s not even as imprecise as you claim. If you have questions about what it means, of course, do ask. I’m not going to engage further on this thread. You’re nit-picking at words here in a really unkind way.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]