"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Why wouldn't you assume good faith that when I said "asking everyone else to join in your self-induced blindness is unnecessary" I meant exactly what I said, without any rancor, malice, ill-will, etc? You may read my original reply with an angry tone of voice, a pleasant one, a curious one, a vindictive one, etc. But I have to believe, based on your comment, that you did not assume good faith with me but rather read my comment with something less than a pleasant tone of voice. Am I wrong?
For sure it's ok to quote the plausibility guideline at me. We all need to work at it, and it's not easy. I do find it implausible to read your sentence (the one I just quoted) as free of any rancor etc. If you tell me you wrote it in that spirit, I believe you, but intent doesn't communicate itself on the internet. Most of the time, when people post such things, they are flaming somebody—so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I merely ask whether we need dozens of pretty much the exact same posts day-in, day-out. Nothing more. And I'm certainly NOT self-inducing blindness to this situation, sorry if it came across as such.
You're hiding all the stories about the pandemic. How is that not self-induced blindness? Nothing about my response, nor this response, is judgmental or attacking in any way. If you're hiding all the stories about something, you're blinding yourself to it. That's all.