[aww_dang]

>you seem to think... I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.

Similarly, arresting reporters isn't a plus for a policeman's career.

I do take a position on outrage culture and rampant moralizing which is not serving us well. The blame game isn't the way out of this mess. One-sided, partisan takes are just more fuel on the fire.

[nl]

> I'll just reiterate that I don't have a position on the specific incident.

Except that you do.

> CNN (a highly partisan outlet) has every incentive to have their reporter arrested.

> Therefore I have little room to pass judgement upon police officers who are clearly under more than a little bit of stress. Similarly, I can't condemn the reporter even if he is indeed (which I can't know with certainty) advancing his career in a very cynical way.

Police -> Under stress

Journalist -> advancing his career in a very cynical way

You seem to be using a rhetorical technique where you claim the moral high ground ("However I will refrain from making the judgement of which side is in the position of power."[1]) and then make third-person claims that you can deny are actually making an argument ("If the police department (or perhaps a social strata) were more powerful than CNN's (highly privileged) reporter then why was he released?").

No one else is calling you out on this, so I will. State your argument and stand behind it.

[1] Upthread, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23378751

[aww_dang]

There's no sense in having a discussion if you can't assume good faith. Similarly, if you are going to tell me my position, then why are we talking?

You put the cart before the horse when you accuse me of using a rhetorical technique to take the 'moral high ground'. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that my reluctance to pass judgement on either party informs my statements?

You selectively quote me and ignore that I've also said that the police could have 'let it ride'. If it helps you any, I'll say here that arresting journalists is generally a bad move. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the outset.

The statements you quote were in response to the suggestion that one side was in a position of power. Symptomatically, you divorce this from context as you seek to find meat for your partisan cleaver.

As humans our views are subjective and fallible. The problem of induction etc. If I want to find fault I can most probably nit pick each respective side for hours. No, this is not an invitation to level further criticism on either party. I think we have had enough of that and it isn't getting us anywhere.

You establish the options as Pepsi and Coke and demand that I must choose a cola. Yet, I am not interested in these sugary, carbonated beverages. Here's my view: Partisan takes are all a bunch of gas, short term stimulation with no nourishment.

I'll repeat myself again in case you're still not following. Narrow views, divorced of context are not serving us well. They create a divisive atmosphere. Each respective side engages in outrage culture while offloading responsibility for the ugly outcomes onto their adversary.

Choosing not to participate and a reluctance to rush to judgement isn't a rhetorical technique. It is an acknowledgement that the choices laid before us represent a false dichotomy. It is a rejection of the toxicity of outrage culture. Thank you.