Post #4487122
2026-08-10 07:23 UTC
@en3py@onlyarts.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au It's not a lexical dilemma at all. "Not respond" is neutral; "refuse to respond" is not neutral and implies two extra pieces of information that as far as I can tell we do not have: That the request was received and that a decision was made to ignore it. Neither of those can be inferred from the information at hand. Journalists should be careful with such things, and so should we.
If we are to be better than the liars and the trolls, then we have to be accurate and truthful.
There is also a slight ambiguity here: "respond" could mean respond to the request, i.e., communicate with the Coast Guard, or it could mean "respond to the need", i.e., go help the other vessel. I don't think it makes any difference to this discussion though.
Interesting article on maritime law; thanks!
Replies (2)
-
@adamsteer@mapstodon.space 2026-08-10 08:45
@kauer@aus.social @en3py@onlyarts.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au in this situation not responding is the same as refusing to respond is the same as telling the coast guard actually nope we're gonna leave those folks to swim. It's not complex at all, there's no dilemma - just a sociopath being sociopathic. [been at sea a bit in far away places, reasonably familiar with maritime obligations]
-
@n_dimension@infosec.exchange 2026-08-10 11:25
@kauer@aus.social @en3py@onlyarts.social @aj@gts.sadauskas.id.au If, the story is, as you suggest "not responding" The captain of the 300m private yacht ought to be fired...not manning a comma post on a billionaires yacht is gross negligence.