2 ms·

> WTF I don't understand your indignation. Is it that obvious to you the Valley can solve ALL human problems?

bionsuba 10y ago
No one ever said it would. There's a term for this (I forget it now), but what this person is doing is setting up an easy target to be torn down by creating a ridiculous opinion no one has. Then the author can be seen as the victor; it's really dishonest, and it should make everyone question the veracity of the whole article.
- actsasbuffoon 10y ago
  I believe you're looking for "Straw Man Argument": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
- plehoux 10y ago
  This.
actsasbuffoon 10y ago
Not the original poster, but I read the comment differently. > Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no, the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never will. I have a few problems with this quote. First, I don't think the people of SV ever got together and said, "We're going to solve all human problems!" The author is putting words into other people's mouths in order to make them look ridiculous. Second, what does this quote have to do with the topic at hand? This is a discussion of whether or not it's okay for a billionaire to help fund someone else's litigation, and it suddenly veers into a weird attack on all of SV. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the author of the article is a paid media relations person. This probably isn't journalism, it's more likely unmarked native advertising paid for by Gawker to drum up outrage in preparation for appealing the verdict of the lawsuit. I really thought Reuters was better than this.
cderwin 10y ago
Not OP, but it's just a giant false dichotomy. The author is trying to say that because SV can't solve literally every problem on the face of the earth that no one from SV should try to solve this one. Also, I'm not really sure what it means for "Silicon Valley to tone things down" -- what does that mean? Does it mean people in SV shouldn't protect themselves from slander and libel? Does it mean they shouldn't protect others from slander and libel? Does it mean they shouldn't use the court system to go after a cancerous and immature publication that literally ruins good people's lives? Does it mean they shouldn't use the legal system to promote their interests (notably as opposed to the "illegal" system, whatever that would be)? Too me, any of these are preposterous. It honestly sounds like the author is just whining on behalf of Gawker.

No one ever said it would. There's a term for this (I forget it now), but what this person is doing is setting up an easy target to be torn down by creating a ridiculous opinion no one has. Then the author can be seen as the victor; it's really dishonest, and it should make everyone question the veracity of the whole article.

actsasbuffoon 10y ago
I believe you're looking for "Straw Man Argument": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
plehoux 10y ago
This.

actsasbuffoon 10y ago

Not the original poster, but I read the comment differently. > Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no, the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never will. I have a few problems with this quote. First, I don't think the people of SV ever got together and said, "We're going to solve all human problems!" The author is putting words into other people's mouths in order to make them look ridiculous. Second, what does this quote have to do with the topic at hand? This is a discussion of whether or not it's okay for a billionaire to help fund someone else's litigation, and it suddenly veers into a weird attack on all of SV. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the author of the article is a paid media relations person. This probably isn't journalism, it's more likely unmarked native advertising paid for by Gawker to drum up outrage in preparation for appealing the verdict of the lawsuit. I really thought Reuters was better than this.

cderwin 10y ago

Not OP, but it's just a giant false dichotomy. The author is trying to say that because SV can't solve literally every problem on the face of the earth that no one from SV should try to solve this one. Also, I'm not really sure what it means for "Silicon Valley to tone things down" -- what does that mean? Does it mean people in SV shouldn't protect themselves from slander and libel? Does it mean they shouldn't protect others from slander and libel? Does it mean they shouldn't use the court system to go after a cancerous and immature publication that literally ruins good people's lives? Does it mean they shouldn't use the legal system to promote their interests (notably as opposed to the "illegal" system, whatever that would be)? Too me, any of these are preposterous. It honestly sounds like the author is just whining on behalf of Gawker.