let me devil's advocate for a minute though. the critique is often about the existence of systems where the only notion of "fair and square" is one with a huge systemic bias built-in as with the blindfolded boxer. the complaint is about lack of alternatives.
this is the core of our disagreement. I have a strong preference to evaluate the statement itself (at least insofar as I can glean its intended meaning in context) without respect to whom the speaker is
-
-
In my experience such statements in this context will either be trivially obvious (in which case we don't need their additional input) or self-serving attempts to deflect blame and muddy the water.
-
This is so pervasively true that the theoretical rare exception is so rare as to justify the use of this heuristic to discount the value of their information to zero.
-
To phrase it differently, the world is full of useful information: the chance that there is a significant amount which is held *only* by some unrepentant hypocrite somewhere is so low as to not be worth considering. In my opinion.
-
Whereas the chance that the information they are attempting to provide is *not* useful is so high that it justifies disregarding them. Also in my opinion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.