[andrewflnr]

This is trying far too hard to be charitable. Mistake theory is great, and it's good that the article mentions it, but it then also presents sufficient evidence to prove, or at least substantiate, malice. At this point not having "bad feelings toward DHH" is itself a "Missing Mood". At any rate, though, the author took the correct action.

Wolves are also pretty important, by the way. Hopefully we all know that by now?

[saghm]

> This is trying far too hard to be charitable. Mistake theory is great, and it's good that the article mentions it, but it then also presents sufficient evidence to prove, or at least substantiate, malice.

The benefit of the doubt only exists as long as there is doubt. Once there's an overwhelming body of evidence that removes any of it, continuing to give it is pretty suspicious, like you mention.

[andrewflnr]

For what it's worth, I do think the author is only guilty of being too kind. I wouldn't call it suspicious in this case.

[saghm]

I'll rephrase: I don't have any reason to actively think they're malicious, but I don't really trust the judgment of someone who sees a person advocate for what they describe as a racist national policy after years of similar opinions and thinks that it's important enough to stop paying a subscription to that person's service, but is concerned about whether they're going to hurt the feelings of that person by actually concluding that maybe the reason they're always advocating for racist policies is just racist.

[presbyterian]

Yeah, personally, it's hard to say "live and let live" about someone who doesn't want a people to live.

[FabHK]

> someone who doesn't want a people to live.

Who doesn't want a people to live? Where do they say that?

[ChadNauseam]

I'd rather be overly charitable 10 times than not charitable enough once. It probably doesn't make me any friends to say it, but let me say why. A slight exaggeration of your view might be that some people are irredeemable mutants who need to be ostracized and can't be reasoned with. I won't stay quiet when I strongly disagree with someone, but I don't need to go that far. I think it's a manifestation of the same tendencies that lead to DHH's post.

[andrewflnr]

> some people are irredeemable mutants who need to be ostracized and can't be reasoned with

Well, not mutants, but in order to be redeemable or able to be reasoned with, they need to choose to be open to those things. Many choose not to. Some might later change their mind, but likely not because of anything you say.

I do think your mistake is a respectable one, though. Figuring out which people actually deserve ostracization is a rather fine balance and we should certainly err against it.

[simianparrot]

Sure but I don't want wolves eating my children.