I do not of course know your intentions, but this comment really rubbed me the wrong way:
Most importantly, there’s the everybody-knows dynamic (which, unrelatedly, Zvi has written about). Something that you happen to know is usually not as common knowledge as you think, and even if this case actually is mostly common knowledge, you could probably have found a way to write it that sounds nicer (i.e. less of a you’re-an-ignorant-outsider vibe) and/or better supported (got any stats/links showing how common this kind of scamming really is?)
Less importantly, the ‘modern USA’ phrasing feels to me like it’s taking a dig at something, like (a less extreme version of) whichever of the following feels most unfair to you: “of course this kind of scamming is common—welcome to capitalism”, or “of course this kind of scamming is common—welcome to Biden’s USA”.
Thanks for your reply. Sorry about that second bullet point and I no longer endorse it—I think that after being annoyed by the first issue, I was in a looking-for-trouble frame of mind while interpreting the rest and read in something that really wasn’t there.
I do not of course know your intentions, but this comment really rubbed me the wrong way:
Most importantly, there’s the everybody-knows dynamic (which, unrelatedly, Zvi has written about). Something that you happen to know is usually not as common knowledge as you think, and even if this case actually is mostly common knowledge, you could probably have found a way to write it that sounds nicer (i.e. less of a you’re-an-ignorant-outsider vibe) and/or better supported (got any stats/links showing how common this kind of scamming really is?)
Less importantly, the ‘modern USA’ phrasing feels to me like it’s taking a dig at something, like (a less extreme version of) whichever of the following feels most unfair to you: “of course this kind of scamming is common—welcome to capitalism”, or “of course this kind of scamming is common—welcome to Biden’s USA”.First bullet, those are good points. It is an interesting question how one would good data on this sort of thing and how accurate that data would be.
Second, this isn’t the intention, it’s to show that the story sounds bizarre. It’s not a political comment.
Thanks for your reply. Sorry about that second bullet point and I no longer endorse it—I think that after being annoyed by the first issue, I was in a looking-for-trouble frame of mind while interpreting the rest and read in something that really wasn’t there.