6 ms·

disheartening to see this downvoted. I come here for relatively neutral discussions.

by mandis 5y ago

InitialLastName 5y ago
... and you're mad that someone whose sources are far-right tabloids is getting downvoted?
- jmeister 5y ago
  You can easily find mainstream sources for those claims. Maybe parent doesn’t want to direct traffic to such sites.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  New Discourses is not far right
  - comfysocks 5y ago
    Agreed, it isn't. Would it be better if GP said "two far-right tabloids and one that isn't, but sometimes gets co-opted by the far-right?"
    - asabjorn 5y ago
      Why do you think it is important where the facts are published when links to the source evidence used in my claim is linked to in the articles? How do you differentiate "far-right" from just conservative?
      - ctrlp 5y ago
        Let me explain. Far-right is simply anything to the right of the far-left. Facts are not facts unless and until they are approved facts, and fact-checked by the establishment press fact-checkers. Facts that are non-facts can turn into facts in time if they become useful to the establishment or, in rare cases, cannot be asserted while also asserting other, more important facts, without excessive contradiction. Also, to be facts, they must originate in mainstream institutions, preferably the DNC or any of the capture institutions of government. Technically, these facts are factitious, but they are not, in fact, lies. Lies are truths that contradict facts, so defined. It is important where facts are published because anything that doesn't originate in fact-based institutions can be dismissed without consideration of the merits. It is analogous to not having standing in a court case. In some cases, facts published in far-right outlets can also be published in centrist (i.e., far-left) outlets, if those facts can be spun to serve the controlling interests.
chalst 5y ago
I didn't downvote asabjorn's comment, although I found it weak (e.g., "critical social justice" is a rhetorical portmanteau that does not have a determinate meaning [1]: it's a term to be avoided if you want curious conversation), but I did downvote yours. If you want to support a viewpoint, actually argue for its legitimacy. Downvoting comments that you think are not good for the site is perfectly legitimate, but contentless whining is a waste of time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Critical_social_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
- asabjorn 5y ago
  A lot of people trafficking this site work in the bay area tech scene and is subject to critical social justice DEI initiatives in the workplace. The DEI doctrine is quite consistently applied across tech. How would you classify DEI initiatives? Do you find them determinative?
  - chalst 5y ago
    I have the impression that it would take a long exchange before we could discuss this matter in a manner that doesn't annoy me, and I am not interested in a lengthy exchange. A few suggestions on 'HN-iquette' that might mean you get fewer downvotes and more constructive engagement: 1. You tend to couch your opinions using IDW political jargon. I've done that right now: IDW is itself political/cultural jargon; jargon is useful in making your points briefly and accessibly when the reader shares your terms of reference. But these terms are very imprecise and ask a lot of the reader if they don't share them and set up the following discussion for motte-and-bailey arguments (more jargon [1]) 2. Instead you should throw away your jargon and share why you reach your conclusions in an accessible manner. This is bad for winning arguments, but it is good for the curious conversation that dang is trying to encourage with his moderation [2]. 3. Links are good for two purposes: first, pointers to more information for the interested, but very many sites have a much worse browsing experience than HN; and second, checking claims but most readers want to know enough about the quality of evidence for your claims without actually clicking on them. If you are going to link to any sources that are notorious for clickbait and/or culture war, I advise you to summarise the content so that readers don't simply assume the worst about all of your sources. With regards to your question, you lump a whole lot of things together. DEI initiatives might be put together by people who are very concerned about the risks that online outrage mobs pose to a healthy culture. I don't know what you mean by "determinative"; DEI initiatives might involve a wise attempt to balance freedom of speech with solving problems of underrepresentation that are sensitive to an organisation's culture, or they might be a poorly constructed exercise in risk-aversion that put people in intolerable situations. [1]: Cf. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey although I don't regard it as being a determinate fallacy, rather a bad pattern that happens in argument when there is not a shared understanding of the imprecision of the terminology. [2]: Your reputation is high enough that I guess you are generally aware of dang's approach, but you might not be familiar with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25048415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25048415
jmcgough 5y ago
They used alt-right talking points / lingo / sources. Doesn't seem like a particularly good way to start a neutral, apological discussion.
kordlessagain 5y ago
They are making strawman arguments and, for some, this is completely obvious.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  How is my argument a strawman?
  - kordlessagain 5y ago
    Begin by defining a strawman argument.
    - asabjorn 5y ago
      I am confused with what you mean. Can you please explain why you said part of the argument was a strawman, which part and why?
      - kordlessagain 5y ago
        The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument: Person 1 asserts proposition X. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X. This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. Additionally, Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. I will note you replied to a comment accusing the whistleblower of being trans. That comment (that you replied to) was, of course, ad hominem. For the comment in question, person 1 is the zestyping or the whistleblower, depending. Person 2 is you. Your proposition Y (flagged and hidden now) is not invalid, exactly, but "explaining" it to you is pointless given it is a fallacy diverging from the relevance of the content. The proposition X, which is, in part, "These qualities are what really set this apart from other criticism of social media, and both are incredibly important and healthy in a world where Facebook and Twitter have normalized the opposite." Your proposition Y, is an attack on the whistleblower and her credibility, not the the content of her own propositions, which may be viewed here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/10/protecting%20kids%20online:%20testimony%20from%20a%20facebook%20whistleblower https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/10/protecting%20kids%20... No mention of "banning" "hate speech" at all. Just a plea for someone to do something to remove the blocks in place by way of Facebook (as a corporation) needing to continue making profit, perhaps at the expense of collective sanity, by not addressing the dissonance their platform creates in the population. If you had addressed those claims by her in your comment, you would avoid making strawman arguments. In closing, I get that you and others are frustrated that certain types of posted content are targeted for removal. However, that in and of itself does not mean meaningful and opposed discourse can't occur or that anyone has a "right" to post wherever they like, saying whatever they want. It is that it (your comments) may not occur without significant work involved that we all care about. Cheap and easy discourse isn't good for anyone, harms society, and will continue to be exploited until we come up with a technical solution to solve it. In the meantime, explanations and education are in order. Thanks for the question! Hope this helps without too much blame. P.S. Entirely speculative at this point, but I suspect if we built an inverted index of a fallacious argument, we'd find the weights/distances between words significantly divergent from the original proposition.

disheartening to see this downvoted. I come here for relatively neutral discussions.

by mandis 5y ago

disheartening to see this downvoted. I come here for relatively neutral discussions.

InitialLastName 5y ago

... and you're mad that someone whose sources are far-right tabloids is getting downvoted?

jmeister 5y ago
You can easily find mainstream sources for those claims. Maybe parent doesn’t want to direct traffic to such sites.
ctrlp 5y ago
New Discourses is not far right
- comfysocks 5y ago
  Agreed, it isn't. Would it be better if GP said "two far-right tabloids and one that isn't, but sometimes gets co-opted by the far-right?"
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    Why do you think it is important where the facts are published when links to the source evidence used in my claim is linked to in the articles? How do you differentiate "far-right" from just conservative?
    - ctrlp 5y ago
      Let me explain. Far-right is simply anything to the right of the far-left. Facts are not facts unless and until they are approved facts, and fact-checked by the establishment press fact-checkers. Facts that are non-facts can turn into facts in time if they become useful to the establishment or, in rare cases, cannot be asserted while also asserting other, more important facts, without excessive contradiction. Also, to be facts, they must originate in mainstream institutions, preferably the DNC or any of the capture institutions of government. Technically, these facts are factitious, but they are not, in fact, lies. Lies are truths that contradict facts, so defined. It is important where facts are published because anything that doesn't originate in fact-based institutions can be dismissed without consideration of the merits. It is analogous to not having standing in a court case. In some cases, facts published in far-right outlets can also be published in centrist (i.e., far-left) outlets, if those facts can be spun to serve the controlling interests.

chalst 5y ago

I didn't downvote asabjorn's comment, although I found it weak (e.g., "critical social justice" is a rhetorical portmanteau that does not have a determinate meaning [1]: it's a term to be avoided if you want curious conversation), but I did downvote yours. If you want to support a viewpoint, actually argue for its legitimacy. Downvoting comments that you think are not good for the site is perfectly legitimate, but contentless whining is a waste of time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Critical_social_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

asabjorn 5y ago
A lot of people trafficking this site work in the bay area tech scene and is subject to critical social justice DEI initiatives in the workplace. The DEI doctrine is quite consistently applied across tech. How would you classify DEI initiatives? Do you find them determinative?
- chalst 5y ago
  I have the impression that it would take a long exchange before we could discuss this matter in a manner that doesn't annoy me, and I am not interested in a lengthy exchange. A few suggestions on 'HN-iquette' that might mean you get fewer downvotes and more constructive engagement: 1. You tend to couch your opinions using IDW political jargon. I've done that right now: IDW is itself political/cultural jargon; jargon is useful in making your points briefly and accessibly when the reader shares your terms of reference. But these terms are very imprecise and ask a lot of the reader if they don't share them and set up the following discussion for motte-and-bailey arguments (more jargon [1]) 2. Instead you should throw away your jargon and share why you reach your conclusions in an accessible manner. This is bad for winning arguments, but it is good for the curious conversation that dang is trying to encourage with his moderation [2]. 3. Links are good for two purposes: first, pointers to more information for the interested, but very many sites have a much worse browsing experience than HN; and second, checking claims but most readers want to know enough about the quality of evidence for your claims without actually clicking on them. If you are going to link to any sources that are notorious for clickbait and/or culture war, I advise you to summarise the content so that readers don't simply assume the worst about all of your sources. With regards to your question, you lump a whole lot of things together. DEI initiatives might be put together by people who are very concerned about the risks that online outrage mobs pose to a healthy culture. I don't know what you mean by "determinative"; DEI initiatives might involve a wise attempt to balance freedom of speech with solving problems of underrepresentation that are sensitive to an organisation's culture, or they might be a poorly constructed exercise in risk-aversion that put people in intolerable situations. [1]: Cf. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey although I don't regard it as being a determinate fallacy, rather a bad pattern that happens in argument when there is not a shared understanding of the imprecision of the terminology. [2]: Your reputation is high enough that I guess you are generally aware of dang's approach, but you might not be familiar with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25048415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25048415

jmcgough 5y ago

They used alt-right talking points / lingo / sources. Doesn't seem like a particularly good way to start a neutral, apological discussion.

kordlessagain 5y ago

They are making strawman arguments and, for some, this is completely obvious.

asabjorn 5y ago
How is my argument a strawman?
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  Begin by defining a strawman argument.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    I am confused with what you mean. Can you please explain why you said part of the argument was a strawman, which part and why?
    - kordlessagain 5y ago
      The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument: Person 1 asserts proposition X. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X. This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. Additionally, Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. I will note you replied to a comment accusing the whistleblower of being trans. That comment (that you replied to) was, of course, ad hominem. For the comment in question, person 1 is the zestyping or the whistleblower, depending. Person 2 is you. Your proposition Y (flagged and hidden now) is not invalid, exactly, but "explaining" it to you is pointless given it is a fallacy diverging from the relevance of the content. The proposition X, which is, in part, "These qualities are what really set this apart from other criticism of social media, and both are incredibly important and healthy in a world where Facebook and Twitter have normalized the opposite." Your proposition Y, is an attack on the whistleblower and her credibility, not the the content of her own propositions, which may be viewed here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/10/protecting%20kids%20online:%20testimony%20from%20a%20facebook%20whistleblower https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2021/10/protecting%20kids%20... No mention of "banning" "hate speech" at all. Just a plea for someone to do something to remove the blocks in place by way of Facebook (as a corporation) needing to continue making profit, perhaps at the expense of collective sanity, by not addressing the dissonance their platform creates in the population. If you had addressed those claims by her in your comment, you would avoid making strawman arguments. In closing, I get that you and others are frustrated that certain types of posted content are targeted for removal. However, that in and of itself does not mean meaningful and opposed discourse can't occur or that anyone has a "right" to post wherever they like, saying whatever they want. It is that it (your comments) may not occur without significant work involved that we all care about. Cheap and easy discourse isn't good for anyone, harms society, and will continue to be exploited until we come up with a technical solution to solve it. In the meantime, explanations and education are in order. Thanks for the question! Hope this helps without too much blame. P.S. Entirely speculative at this point, but I suspect if we built an inverted index of a fallacious argument, we'd find the weights/distances between words significantly divergent from the original proposition.