Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

> What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no?

Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.

View on HN

No. The OP was complaining about something already assuming they're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP was adding something on top of that. I was asking what that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more than:

>The outrage is about them telling you to vote no.

Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to).

If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment!

Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking.

If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.

I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-step instructions encourage you to vote no in three different places.

There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear:

> Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark no? Thanks, amazon.

I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to.

We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does.

If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?

You're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the same page here.

So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.

Someone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.

I guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the original comment says nothing about that, and how that part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very comment.

At this point I don't really know how to respond other than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.

All such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually outraged about in way that can convince others to join them? Yeah, sounds about right.

Have you considered that you simply aren't understanding the reasons, which are quite clear and unambiguous to a relatively large population? That is, maybe the issue here is your difficulty understanding, rather than anybody else's ability to explain.

You don't need to make things clear if everyone already knows what everyone else is talking about.

After an explanation that you clearly understood, I'm not sure why you're still complaining about conversational opacity.

No, I didn’t get any coherent explanation of what the OP was objecting to, after offering charitable interpretations that were rejected.

Edit: I did get some completely separate, independent arguments, if that’s what you mean, but I’m saying I got no explanation of the original comment.

The original comment (at least, I think I went far enough up-thread) said that teaching somebody how to vote and to vote in your favour, when you have power over them, is sleazy.

This is the original comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26263369

There were others that gave different reasons, but none that made any sense of the "OMG six pages of instructions! Horrible!"

Maybe you didn't understand because you're focusing on a bit that the original comment didn't emphasise. The complaint is not about six pages of instructions. The complaint is about combining education with manipulation.

Imagine a handy guide from your bank that included instructions for how to wire money to its author.

Yes, I suggested that as a meaning of what the OP meant, very early on, and it was rejected.

Second paragraph of response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26265969

Can you please stop? I know these tit-for-tat exchanges are hard to pull away from but they're exceptionally tedious, and not what HN is supposed to be for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Could you explain that comment of yours, please? I don't understand how it's saying what you claim it's saying.

Please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26279550

Reply on news.ycombinator.com