2499
2500

South Dakota charges a defendant $92 an hour for his public defender, owed no matter the outcome of the case. If a public defender spends 10 hours proving that her client is innocent, the defendant still owes the lawyer $920, even though he committed no crime and his arrest was a mistake. (nytimes.com)

Sybles が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]pilot3033 29ポイント30ポイント  (9子コメント)

I found the issue discussed distressing, to say the least, but I'm not sure this article qualifies as insightful or "really great" as it pertains to the issue.

It's a brief op-ed that covers the surface of the issue and offers only a single solution but without any discussion nor even a history as to how the nation has ended up in a situation where public defenders are overworked and stretched thin.

[–]PotRoastPotato -18ポイント-17ポイント  (8子コメント)

You're complaining about a NYT op-ed bringing a crucial issue to light to literally thousands of people... Because it isn't "profound" enough. I will never understand this. Never.

You're saying this post doesn't belong here, I say your comment doesn't belong here.

Edit: I come back in the morning to see your comment is at +40, mine is at -20. The strange thing is, the post you claim doesn't belong here is at +2400, which makes you and everyone upvoting your comment objectively wrong about the post not belonging here; the subscribers have spoken, and the post officially is /r/TrueReddit material.

And it's not like this is garbage or spam. As mentioned above, it's a NYT op-ed about a little known injustice that needs exposure... should be open and shut, right?

But no, it's not good enough for the spoiled brats (yes, spoiled brats) looking for emotional catharsis and Shakesperian depth from every post on /r/TrueReddit.

Not every post is everything to everyone; you should probably adjust your expectations.

Even if you don't admit it (which you clearly don't), you never would have made this comment if this were a 3000-word column saying exactly the same thing, rather than a 750-word column.

Valuing "verbosity" over "importance of spreading awareness of a too-little known injustice" is stupid.

I understand I'm downvoted because my language is strong. But this attitude of "ehhh yes, I admit this is disturbing and an important issue I've never heard of before, but the column isn't deep enough for my liking"... It's literally a terrible way to be. We should strive to be better people than that.

/rant

[–]pilot3033 35ポイント36ポイント  (7子コメント)

From the sidebar:

Consider posting constructive criticism / an explanation when you downvote something. But only if you really think it might help the poster improve.

I agree that the article brought to light something I was previously ignorant of, but I do not think it offered much more than that. The article offers nothing beyond the post title.

You've since edited your post so I will edit mine: I did not say the article should be removed from the New York Times, I said I don't think it belongs on /r/truereddit, which does attempt to curate content through crowdsourcing.

Profundity has little do with that, and I already expressed my agreement with the article's premise that a problem exists. I do not think it belongs here because it doesn't provide anything more than a cursory overview of the issue. There is no interview with the South Dakota defendant, there is hardly backstory on why public defenders exist, and the outline solution is little more than "let's throw federal money at it."

I do not feel TR is a place designed to break critical information to people. It's a coffee house not a soap box.

It's not about verbosity so much as it's about depth. You can say a lot in a little (or a little in a lot) and it doesn't matter either way. The goal of TR is not just to bring to light unknowns but to also provide enough material to have a meaty discussion about it. As far as I can tell, we've had little more than shows of agreement with the article's premise and our own exchange.