> Can you imagine handing your bank details to these clowns?
On the whole this is an informative and well written explanation of the reaction to Bodega, but I don't think commentary like this is helpful.
replies(2):
On the whole this is an informative and well written explanation of the reaction to Bodega, but I don't think commentary like this is helpful.
To me, the commentary helps call out how insincere and non-genuine the quoted text is.
Who would this "bank details" comment help, and how, and why does someone's point of view affect whether it's helpful?
> To me, the commentary helps call out how insincere and non-genuine the quoted text is.
There's plenty to discuss on the branding, commercial model, and social implications without attempting to smear them with vague implications of either technical incompetence/negligence or some kind of fraud/ethical risk.
Perhaps I've misunderstood it and there's an interpretation of this "bank details" line that's grounded in some evidence rather than being an unnecessary smear.
Take it as a 'I don't consider your question as stated to be meaningful'.
The question I asked you was a literal question, not an empathy exercise. By all means suggest a way that anyone might be helped by this apparently-unevidenced smear.
It may comfort people to read things that support their worldview, but I don't agree that it helps them.
[Edit: changed questions to question as I only asked one]
> Could you imagine the point-of-view of someone who did find this helpful?
I felt that your response didn't try to answer it, and thus I thought you cannot imagine such a person & see things from their point-of-view.
Yep, and I've explained at length now that your question needs clarifying before any kind of answer can be meaningful.
You asked me to empathise with the views of people helped by the author's apparent smear. I'm sincerely asking you; who are these people you're asking me to empathise with, and how have they been helped?
Without that this is all drearily hypothetical and meaningless.