4 ms·

Replacing comments which you apparently can't refute with the phrase "Fart fart fart". Indeed, very entertaining and mature.

geofft 10y ago
Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept. Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics): "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side." The only winning move, for those of us who believe in words, is not to play.
- piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
  Comparing people who were trying to remind what the whole affair was really about (corruption in journalism) to antisemites. Well, it was hard to beat mjg59, but it seems you've managed to do so. He just censored them, in a childish way.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate...
    - geofft 10y ago
      You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously. In any case, the rest of Sartre's essay is completely on point. Among other things, it addresses this exact ability to believe a thing and its contradiction, and make it only a problem for the people who are trying to argue against them in good faith - it's quite scary how accurately Sartre in 1944 was able to understand these modes of trolling (and trolling is really the term for it). Harvard has the first chapter online: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sartre__Anti-Semite_and_Jew.pdf http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sart... There's an interesting question in there of what, exactly, the anti-Semite is going to do once they're not able to hate the Jew. That's the only thing Sartre couldn't see in 1944, but he did see that it's not about anything the Jewish people are or do, but as the other. Today we've declared anti-Semitism unacceptable, but we've got enough other others.
      - grzm 10y ago
        If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I don't think you read his comment very carefully. He was quoting Sartre, about trolling. He doesn't get to choose what Sartre wrote about!
        grzm 10y ago
        I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context, that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out: You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. If the goal is to have a useful discussion, if you can come up with different quote or analogy that does not include anti-semitism, in my opinion the discussion would be better served.

geofft 10y ago

Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept. Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics): "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side." The only winning move, for those of us who believe in words, is not to play.

piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
Comparing people who were trying to remind what the whole affair was really about (corruption in journalism) to antisemites. Well, it was hard to beat mjg59, but it seems you've managed to do so. He just censored them, in a childish way.
- pjc50 10y ago
  It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate...
  - geofft 10y ago
    You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously. In any case, the rest of Sartre's essay is completely on point. Among other things, it addresses this exact ability to believe a thing and its contradiction, and make it only a problem for the people who are trying to argue against them in good faith - it's quite scary how accurately Sartre in 1944 was able to understand these modes of trolling (and trolling is really the term for it). Harvard has the first chapter online: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sartre__Anti-Semite_and_Jew.pdf http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sart... There's an interesting question in there of what, exactly, the anti-Semite is going to do once they're not able to hate the Jew. That's the only thing Sartre couldn't see in 1944, but he did see that it's not about anything the Jewish people are or do, but as the other. Today we've declared anti-Semitism unacceptable, but we've got enough other others.
    - grzm 10y ago
      If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I don't think you read his comment very carefully. He was quoting Sartre, about trolling. He doesn't get to choose what Sartre wrote about!
        grzm 10y ago
        I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context, that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out: You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. If the goal is to have a useful discussion, if you can come up with different quote or analogy that does not include anti-semitism, in my opinion the discussion would be better served.