5 ms·

Again, that's depressingly naive. If journalists call out Billionaire X for some bad behavior... Just buy the paper and fire those people. Or fund an endless st

Again, that's depressingly naive. If journalists call out Billionaire X for some bad behavior... Just buy the paper and fire those people. Or fund an endless stream of lawsuits to silence them. That's the bigger picture here: Theil is trying to put a news outlet he doesn't like out of business. Even if he's totally justified the next 10 cases may not be but you can bet people will get the picture: don't piss off the SV billionaire club.

leereeves 10y ago
You know that calling a different opinion naive isn't actually an argument, right? The mere possibility of a slippery slope doesn't show that Peter Thiel did anything wrong here. I hope other websites should learn not to publish something they don't have the legal right to publish.
- bduerst 10y ago
  The argument behind why it's a naive perspective was made in the parent comment.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Am I alone in thinking insults like naive don't belong in discussions on Hacker News? No one's denying that wealthy people are powerful, but that's so well known that it's hardly worth discussing. Not all power is equal. Thiel is powerful; Gawker was powerful; neither comes close to the power of the government, or the established media, or the old money that quietly dominates most everything outside SV.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Ad hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of statements and when they are backed up by reasoning. Blatant name calling isn't welcome, but saying something is naive and then taking the time to explain why and without malice shouldn't be censored.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        The reasoning is valuable, the ad hom attack is not.
        CPLX 10y ago
        I wrote the post you are criticizing as ad hominem. It is not that, because it doesn't have any hominem in it. My post leads with "The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive." The problem with [THE ARGUED POINT] is that [CRITICISM], because of [SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE METAPHOR] is the opposite of an ad hom attack. Ad hom attacks say the problem with [PERSON] is [INSULT] or similar.
        leereeves 10y ago
        Naive means: > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you implied that grellas lacked experience or wisdom. It could reasonably be taken as ad hom.
        CPLX 10y ago
        I have no idea if the internet commenter I replied to is naive. I will however stand by my opinion that "extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people" is a hopelessly naive statement. There is a difference. I do admire and respect the civil tone of discussion on HN very much, and am pretty sure I am contributing to it here.
        leereeves 10y ago
        That's only a portion of the statement. The full quote was: > Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they come in all shapes and sizes.

leereeves 10y ago

You know that calling a different opinion naive isn't actually an argument, right? The mere possibility of a slippery slope doesn't show that Peter Thiel did anything wrong here. I hope other websites should learn not to publish something they don't have the legal right to publish.

bduerst 10y ago
The argument behind why it's a naive perspective was made in the parent comment.
- leereeves 10y ago
  Am I alone in thinking insults like naive don't belong in discussions on Hacker News? No one's denying that wealthy people are powerful, but that's so well known that it's hardly worth discussing. Not all power is equal. Thiel is powerful; Gawker was powerful; neither comes close to the power of the government, or the established media, or the old money that quietly dominates most everything outside SV.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Ad hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of statements and when they are backed up by reasoning. Blatant name calling isn't welcome, but saying something is naive and then taking the time to explain why and without malice shouldn't be censored.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      The reasoning is valuable, the ad hom attack is not.
      - CPLX 10y ago
        I wrote the post you are criticizing as ad hominem. It is not that, because it doesn't have any hominem in it. My post leads with "The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive." The problem with [THE ARGUED POINT] is that [CRITICISM], because of [SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE METAPHOR] is the opposite of an ad hom attack. Ad hom attacks say the problem with [PERSON] is [INSULT] or similar.
        leereeves 10y ago
        Naive means: > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you implied that grellas lacked experience or wisdom. It could reasonably be taken as ad hom.
        CPLX 10y ago
        I have no idea if the internet commenter I replied to is naive. I will however stand by my opinion that "extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people" is a hopelessly naive statement. There is a difference. I do admire and respect the civil tone of discussion on HN very much, and am pretty sure I am contributing to it here.
        leereeves 10y ago
        That's only a portion of the statement. The full quote was: > Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they come in all shapes and sizes.