3 ms·

There is nothing in the article to rebut. The article is merely engaging in mood affiliation - saying words that evoke the right emotions and appeal to the trib

There is nothing in the article to rebut. The article is merely engaging in mood affiliation - saying words that evoke the right emotions and appeal to the tribe of some readers - without actually engaging in reasoning that someone could rebut. It dismisses problems like death and AI risk solely by describing them as "fake". No argument is made for this - the reader in the tribe of the author is assumed to already agree. It asserts that politics should control tech. Again no argument is made, because the reader is assumed to already agree. Similarly for the idea that techies somehow owe something to random (globally) wealthy people who are physically close to them. What, exactly, is the argument you think I should rebut?

tptacek 10y ago
There's no especially respectful way to say this but I'll try my best since I think it's worth saying: this stuff about "mood affiliation" and "signaling" (elsewhere) and "tribes" seems like rhetoric you often reach for when backed into a corner. It's ironic, I know, that I'm responding to your argument that "this article has nothing to rebut" by saying that your own comments are deliberately designed not to be rebuttable. But, it's true. This article self-evidently makes points that can be disagreed with, and your comments are designed to avoid that trap.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think I'll have to back 'yummyfajitas on this one. The article does make some points, but a big part of it is just random insults at technologists and ridiculing their ideas. Some of it may be warranted, and I'm the first to take potshots at adtech, but there are limits. For me, this talk (and the few last ones of his too) reads a bit like "hahaha, look at those stupid, arrogant techies, they want to cure death, what a nonsense hahahaha".
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You're not siding with 'yummyfajitas. You're (almost) doing what he refuses to do: pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it. If you fleshed that point out a little more you'd be going, rhetorically, in the opposite direction as him. I happen to agree with most (maybe all?) of what's in Maciej's post. But my problem isn't that Stucchio disagrees with it; my problem is that he refuses to engage honestly with it, and then writes assumptively that we must, as fellow tech people, feel the same way. The reasoning he's used it embarrassingly weak, and I object to being assumptively affiliated with it.
    - mellifulation 10y ago
      >pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut. Stating that a claim should be disregarded because it is presented as a bald assertion without support is a rebuttal.
        mellifulation 10y ago
        You're right, but only in the most point-missingly literal sense.

tptacek 10y ago

There's no especially respectful way to say this but I'll try my best since I think it's worth saying: this stuff about "mood affiliation" and "signaling" (elsewhere) and "tribes" seems like rhetoric you often reach for when backed into a corner. It's ironic, I know, that I'm responding to your argument that "this article has nothing to rebut" by saying that your own comments are deliberately designed not to be rebuttable. But, it's true. This article self-evidently makes points that can be disagreed with, and your comments are designed to avoid that trap.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think I'll have to back 'yummyfajitas on this one. The article does make some points, but a big part of it is just random insults at technologists and ridiculing their ideas. Some of it may be warranted, and I'm the first to take potshots at adtech, but there are limits. For me, this talk (and the few last ones of his too) reads a bit like "hahaha, look at those stupid, arrogant techies, they want to cure death, what a nonsense hahahaha".
- tptacek 10y ago
  You're not siding with 'yummyfajitas. You're (almost) doing what he refuses to do: pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it. If you fleshed that point out a little more you'd be going, rhetorically, in the opposite direction as him. I happen to agree with most (maybe all?) of what's in Maciej's post. But my problem isn't that Stucchio disagrees with it; my problem is that he refuses to engage honestly with it, and then writes assumptively that we must, as fellow tech people, feel the same way. The reasoning he's used it embarrassingly weak, and I object to being assumptively affiliated with it.
  - mellifulation 10y ago
    >pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut. Stating that a claim should be disregarded because it is presented as a bald assertion without support is a rebuttal.
      - mellifulation 10y ago
        You're right, but only in the most point-missingly literal sense.