You know, I almost feel like we are both saying "believe," but that we both mean something different.
When someone says "I really don't believe that," what I hear is, "I am certain that more of this story is false than true." Based on this post, though, that doesn't seem like what you're saying--it seems like you are just asserting that the story has just been modified to become a little bit "larger than life." For example, maybe in real life the tire iron didn't break, but in the Redditor's Magical-Love-Compassion-Universe, it snapped and the Mexican man's wife was on the road to get a new one just seconds later, still all smiles.
When it comes to stuff like that, I have what I would call "Schrodinger's belief" in those details. It's not that I believe or disbelieve; I simply wouldn't be surprised either way. Turns out the details were embellished? No shock there. Turns out it was patently true, through-and-through? Well that's just spiffy.
I was upset when I thought you were certain that the entire thing was fabricated. I didn't understand how anyone could come to possess a world-view that precluded the possibility of such a simple kindness. And, as we all know: Humans fear the unknown; Americans yell at it and accuse it of terrorism. So, to the extent that you were just saying "This seems embellished," I'm sorry I called you a spiritual terrorist.
When I re-read your OP now, I think I see what happened.
This was my thought process when I originally read it, and I bet the downvoters felt similarly:
----
> That's a good story but a little over the top.
I can buy that. Obviously I'd like to believe it's 100% true, but everyone loves to embellish.
> If the author had dispensed with the $20 bill in the tamale the suspension of belief would have been a little more effective.
Wait, what? "Suspension of disbelief?" This guy doesn't believe the entire story... and it's because the Mexican wouldn't take the poster's money? That's crazy. I've turned down money after helping a stranger before; why wouldn't the good samaritan in the story? This guy is either crazy, misanthropic, racist, or a combination of all three. My disgust must be broadcast to the world... dear colkassad, who was foolish enough to be wrong on the internet, I downvote you with the fury of a thousand suns!
----
Okay, maybe that last part was a little over the top. But the gist of it is: I think that when you explicated a potential embellishment that everyone else had ostensibly already accepted, they thought you were taking it one step further.
Or, I dunno. Maybe people were just pissed 'cause we're all optimistic hippies and you were harshing our rainbow love groove. The world may never know.
Thanks for continuing to explain yourself in the face of my opinionated ranting, by the way--I love Hacker News most of all for its tendency to nurture discussions like this.
When someone says "I really don't believe that," what I hear is, "I am certain that more of this story is false than true." Based on this post, though, that doesn't seem like what you're saying--it seems like you are just asserting that the story has just been modified to become a little bit "larger than life." For example, maybe in real life the tire iron didn't break, but in the Redditor's Magical-Love-Compassion-Universe, it snapped and the Mexican man's wife was on the road to get a new one just seconds later, still all smiles.
When it comes to stuff like that, I have what I would call "Schrodinger's belief" in those details. It's not that I believe or disbelieve; I simply wouldn't be surprised either way. Turns out the details were embellished? No shock there. Turns out it was patently true, through-and-through? Well that's just spiffy.
I was upset when I thought you were certain that the entire thing was fabricated. I didn't understand how anyone could come to possess a world-view that precluded the possibility of such a simple kindness. And, as we all know: Humans fear the unknown; Americans yell at it and accuse it of terrorism. So, to the extent that you were just saying "This seems embellished," I'm sorry I called you a spiritual terrorist.
When I re-read your OP now, I think I see what happened.
This was my thought process when I originally read it, and I bet the downvoters felt similarly:
----
> That's a good story but a little over the top.
I can buy that. Obviously I'd like to believe it's 100% true, but everyone loves to embellish.
> If the author had dispensed with the $20 bill in the tamale the suspension of belief would have been a little more effective.
Wait, what? "Suspension of disbelief?" This guy doesn't believe the entire story... and it's because the Mexican wouldn't take the poster's money? That's crazy. I've turned down money after helping a stranger before; why wouldn't the good samaritan in the story? This guy is either crazy, misanthropic, racist, or a combination of all three. My disgust must be broadcast to the world... dear colkassad, who was foolish enough to be wrong on the internet, I downvote you with the fury of a thousand suns!
----
Okay, maybe that last part was a little over the top. But the gist of it is: I think that when you explicated a potential embellishment that everyone else had ostensibly already accepted, they thought you were taking it one step further.
Or, I dunno. Maybe people were just pissed 'cause we're all optimistic hippies and you were harshing our rainbow love groove. The world may never know.
Thanks for continuing to explain yourself in the face of my opinionated ranting, by the way--I love Hacker News most of all for its tendency to nurture discussions like this.