5 ms·

See, your comment is another example but from the other side, and it's exactly how people slide into the extremes. They interpret the same facts the other side

See, your comment is another example but from the other side, and it's exactly how people slide into the extremes. They interpret the same facts the other side sees, but in the worst way possible. The lady that killed her kids went cuckoo, killed her kids and jumped out a window almost killing herself. Nobody is defending baby-murder, they're just saying 'Yeah, crazy people should get help BEFORE this junk happens.' The jurors agreed that she wasn't responsible for her actions at the time, and they weren't all left wing. The other one... I think that you're talking about Carmen Lizet Puch? Literally no-one anywhere is defending that one. Maybe some weirdos on fringe internet forums, because there's always another nut out there willing to defend anything... Nobody in the mainstream from either side is defending it, but some right-wing folks are intentionally strawman'ing it as if someone were. There's a lot of BS coming from both sides that could be avoided if the larger world followed the HN advice to always argue against the best version of the other persons argument, rather than to try and construct the weakest possible version and attack that.

dismalaf 12d ago
> The jurors agreed that she wasn't responsible for her actions at the time, and they weren't all left wing. You're literally inventing facts in your head. The jury was hung and a mistrial was just declared.
- mapontosevenths 12d ago
  My bad. So change the sentence in your head to "The jurors could not agree that she was responsible for her actions at the time, and they weren't all left wing." Nothing about my point changes. You're just looking for something about it to attack by trying to find the worst version of it again. We're all (presumably) human, and we all make mistakes in phrasing, grammar, etc. Most of us don't have the time or motivation to craft every sentence into a finely honed razor of logical and grammatical accuracy, and shouldn't have to just to be understood. DHH's statements were the same sort of thing. He could have said exactly the same thing with different words and nobody would have been angry, but he shouldn't have to. People just WANT to find a reason to hate each other.

dismalaf 12d ago

> The jurors agreed that she wasn't responsible for her actions at the time, and they weren't all left wing. You're literally inventing facts in your head. The jury was hung and a mistrial was just declared.

mapontosevenths 12d ago
My bad. So change the sentence in your head to "The jurors could not agree that she was responsible for her actions at the time, and they weren't all left wing." Nothing about my point changes. You're just looking for something about it to attack by trying to find the worst version of it again. We're all (presumably) human, and we all make mistakes in phrasing, grammar, etc. Most of us don't have the time or motivation to craft every sentence into a finely honed razor of logical and grammatical accuracy, and shouldn't have to just to be understood. DHH's statements were the same sort of thing. He could have said exactly the same thing with different words and nobody would have been angry, but he shouldn't have to. People just WANT to find a reason to hate each other.