Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by electricEmu 2960 days ago
> You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value?

That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue.

Why would anyone trust an internet-rando and a single article?

You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?

I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
1 comments
chimeracoder 2959 days ago
> That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?

I don't know where you get "one-sided" out of any of this. I responded to a claim that the problems in this article have nothing to do with unions, pointing out that the union for MTA workers has been the main driving force against solving the problems described in the article. Between the information in the article, the other information linked elsewhere in the comments here, and some basic Googling, that's all pretty easy to verify.

If anything is "one-sided", it's the original claim that I refuted.

> I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.

Rampant corruption. The TWU isn't the only source of that corruption, but it's foolish to pretend they're not a significant part of it.

link
electricEmu 2959 days ago
Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.
link
chimeracoder 2959 days ago
> Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Instead of blindly speculating on what could be true, when you've already said that you're not familiar with the topic, how about doing your research on the facts and learning why this is what's actually true.

You started off with a claim that was directly debunked by actually reading the article. Then you pivoted to speculating (but not substantiating) the existence of information that could hypothetically make your original statement a little less incorrect.

At this point, the only foolish thing is pretending that you're contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.

link