Compared to an Alzheimer's perspective? How does one even remotely discuss a history of unwell behavior? Obviously through a documentation of a person's history.
Or does one somehow incredibly discuss a person from a single snapshot? Surely one-shot judgment is what's shallow, and zero-history judgment is called prejudice.
How does one crave context and then forget the past?
And when court compassionately considers events in a person's life which may have lead to a crime, how is that a "derailing" of forgiveness? What would clarity even mean here?
I'm not arguing to forget the past. I'm arguing that the current trend is that of merely skimming and cherry-picking, the least useful of historical analyses.
Yes, you're saying you wish some people would stop analyzing badly. I presume you have more confidence in HN moderators who analyze personal history. There are some people you trust, and some you don't.
I guess the deep distinction you are proposing is that the random HN person who cherry-picked is bad, while HN moderation is good. How do we recognize your distinction? Through a history of behavior.
HN, I trust to some greater degree, yes. That doesn't mean temperature doesn't change, as it has on many platforms before, and will on many after.
The tool I linked above is an example of working around the issue: it's a form of doxxing, in which the information is dumped publicly beneath the user's post in order to tag and attempt to remove the validity of the post in the public opinion, even (and especially) when used in a non-sequitur manner.
Or does one somehow incredibly discuss a person from a single snapshot? Surely one-shot judgment is what's shallow, and zero-history judgment is called prejudice.
How does one crave context and then forget the past?
And when court compassionately considers events in a person's life which may have lead to a crime, how is that a "derailing" of forgiveness? What would clarity even mean here?