5 ms·

It is an extremely common tactic in online discussions to take violent offense to the least charitable possible interpretation of a post, in order to paint som

by lukev 10y ago

It is an extremely common tactic in online discussions to take violent offense to the least charitable possible interpretation of a post, in order to paint someone you disagree with as an idiot. For example, having read my post, one might actually try to understand the point I was trying to make OR one might imply that I was incapable of understanding the concept of logical contradiction, for the sake of making a point. I was calling out wyager for that behavior. I invite you to step back and think about which party is using "rhetorical tricks" in bad faith, here. And think about your own post while you're at it.

oldmanjay 10y ago
If you continue to pursue religious points in a community that clearly is not subject to ham-fisted rhetorical manipulation, the charitable assumption becomes that you are trolling I'm not accusing you of trolling. I'm saying it is now the most charitable interpretation of your behavior.
- lukev 10y ago
  I believe that inclusivity is important. I believe that speech should be moderated to make the tech community more welcoming. Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of civility and culture. I believe that we can and should have a discussion about this without implying that the other person is mentally incompetent. So if that's how you define a troll, then I'm proud to be one.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    Are you really that unaware? People called you out for being religious, and you respond with a list of things you "believe" using fuzzy logic, with appeals to emotion, and imprecise language. So you're proud to be religious. Fine. Be religious somewhere else. For instance, should hackernews be welcoming to you? When you don't respect the community norms by responding in a logical way and refuting arguments?
- gavinpc 10y ago
  I have to come to lukev's defense here. How are lukev's points any different from those being made by trjordan in this thread? It's very apparent to me that lukev's comments are being downvoted because of disagreements with the viewpoint they express, not because they are provocative or manipulative. Whereas the original comment by hubert123 (for example) is much closer to "trolling" (edit as I understand it, anyway). The case in question is manifestly ridiculous. It'll be a while before anything can unseat this snafu as the poster child for inclusivity-gone-too-far. The last one perhaps being the Brendan Eich affair, although I think that case is at least debatable (by "reasonable" people). But—and this is the point—there still is still a "line" (the baby), even though some people will always draw it way too tight (the bathwater). Line crossed (IMHO): https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ (edit To clarify, I agree with the signatories that the line was crossed by inviting the speaker in question.)
jimmywanger 10y ago
Your reply underscores my point. My own post said that you used the term "Obviously" when it was clear it was not obvious, as multiple people took it the wrong way. That is a rhetorical trick. Once you say "Obviously", the implication is that since the reader didn't understand the meaning of the post, the reader is either trolling or stupid. I also like how you ask me to step back and ask who's using rhetorical tricks, and ask me to think about my own post, thereby associating them together, implying that my own post used rhetorical tricks. Nice scare quotes btw. Why should I think about my own post? I made a point and backed it up, without rhetorical tricks. I just stated that you said something was obvious, when empirically it was not obvious at all to other observers. You did not address the second part of my post, where I stated that policing should be applied to individuals, not language.

by lukev 10y ago

oldmanjay 10y ago

If you continue to pursue religious points in a community that clearly is not subject to ham-fisted rhetorical manipulation, the charitable assumption becomes that you are trolling I'm not accusing you of trolling. I'm saying it is now the most charitable interpretation of your behavior.

lukev 10y ago
I believe that inclusivity is important. I believe that speech should be moderated to make the tech community more welcoming. Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of civility and culture. I believe that we can and should have a discussion about this without implying that the other person is mentally incompetent. So if that's how you define a troll, then I'm proud to be one.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  Are you really that unaware? People called you out for being religious, and you respond with a list of things you "believe" using fuzzy logic, with appeals to emotion, and imprecise language. So you're proud to be religious. Fine. Be religious somewhere else. For instance, should hackernews be welcoming to you? When you don't respect the community norms by responding in a logical way and refuting arguments?
gavinpc 10y ago
I have to come to lukev's defense here. How are lukev's points any different from those being made by trjordan in this thread? It's very apparent to me that lukev's comments are being downvoted because of disagreements with the viewpoint they express, not because they are provocative or manipulative. Whereas the original comment by hubert123 (for example) is much closer to "trolling" (edit as I understand it, anyway). The case in question is manifestly ridiculous. It'll be a while before anything can unseat this snafu as the poster child for inclusivity-gone-too-far. The last one perhaps being the Brendan Eich affair, although I think that case is at least debatable (by "reasonable" people). But—and this is the point—there still is still a "line" (the baby), even though some people will always draw it way too tight (the bathwater). Line crossed (IMHO): https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ https://statement-on-lambdaconf.github.io/ (edit To clarify, I agree with the signatories that the line was crossed by inviting the speaker in question.)

jimmywanger 10y ago

Your reply underscores my point. My own post said that you used the term "Obviously" when it was clear it was not obvious, as multiple people took it the wrong way. That is a rhetorical trick. Once you say "Obviously", the implication is that since the reader didn't understand the meaning of the post, the reader is either trolling or stupid. I also like how you ask me to step back and ask who's using rhetorical tricks, and ask me to think about my own post, thereby associating them together, implying that my own post used rhetorical tricks. Nice scare quotes btw. Why should I think about my own post? I made a point and backed it up, without rhetorical tricks. I just stated that you said something was obvious, when empirically it was not obvious at all to other observers. You did not address the second part of my post, where I stated that policing should be applied to individuals, not language.