I find that people who judge a statement, not based on the whole of it’s content, but on the surface aesthetic of it to be wholly smart as a bag of rocks.
I for one don’t see the issue with that “to be fair” statement here. The parent used it merely to announce that they were going to take the counter-point to the most likely community view, i.e., they were going to defend Reddit’s action of not naming Swartz as co-founder. They then proceeded to do so by explaining that Swartz never really played a co-founder role. The comment implied “to be fair [to whoever at Reddit made that decision] and then went on to provide supporting argumentation.
It’s quite different from the lazy use of the phrase, e.g., “to be fair, both sides suck” that you may find in political discussions without supporting arguments, for example.
Thus spoke reality? Aaron founded another startup at the y combinator when it got merged into the reddit startup. But the fact that they merged at the y combinator would suggest that reddit already was founded before Aaron was involved. This is all easily verifiable information you’re just so angry that you aren’t on your favorite website that you are just making shit up at this point.
i find explanations that begin with the phrase “to be fair”, usually consist entirely of spin
I find that people who judge a statement, not based on the whole of it’s content, but on the surface aesthetic of it to be wholly smart as a bag of rocks.
no need to get personal, it’s just an observation
To be fair, his statement was also just an observation.
not one you can prove as easily as the phenomenon i described, though… you can check it… bullshit begins with “to be fair”, and other such phrases…
It also often starts with “I find” or “In my experience”.
Almost like they’re often opinion based, and not fact based.
no, it’s a sophistic device, meant to couch interpretation… followed usually by information about how things are viewed, etc… spin…
you are attempting to insist that what follows is the “fair” perspective… it’s a cheap device used quite frequently…
I for one don’t see the issue with that “to be fair” statement here. The parent used it merely to announce that they were going to take the counter-point to the most likely community view, i.e., they were going to defend Reddit’s action of not naming Swartz as co-founder. They then proceeded to do so by explaining that Swartz never really played a co-founder role. The comment implied “to be fair [to whoever at Reddit made that decision] and then went on to provide supporting argumentation.
It’s quite different from the lazy use of the phrase, e.g., “to be fair, both sides suck” that you may find in political discussions without supporting arguments, for example.
“i for one” is also one of those devices
My observation is that you’re a criminal. Before you respond, remember it’s not personal, it’s just an observation.
and you’re antagonistic
Congrats, you get a cookie. Now toddle on kiddo.
Except it’s true. Aaron didn’t cofound reddit. That doesn’t diminish what he did do.
thus spake AnarchoYeasty
Thus spoke reality? Aaron founded another startup at the y combinator when it got merged into the reddit startup. But the fact that they merged at the y combinator would suggest that reddit already was founded before Aaron was involved. This is all easily verifiable information you’re just so angry that you aren’t on your favorite website that you are just making shit up at this point.
i haven’t made up a single thing, son… you’re the angry one… settle down before you hurt yourself…