5 ms·

It's amazing how quickly examples of the problem dang specifically mentioned have popped up, like this comment. Assuming bad faith without evidence is a big pa

It's amazing how quickly examples of the problem dang specifically mentioned have popped up, like this comment. Assuming bad faith without evidence is a big part of the issue here.

ProAm 10y ago
Im not assuming bad faith, just said I was skeptical. YC is a business and they are very interested in making money. Since the CEO of YC was very outspoken against one political candidate and now there is a week long ban I was just curious. Ive always seem YC as very open to intelligent honest discussion, so a ban like this seemed odd to me. That's why I asked the question, I probably could have phrased it better.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Asking "what's the ulterior motive" is assuming bad faith. It is equivalent to accusing someone of lying.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    Not as much lying as having a hidden reason, and I think companies that who are very interested in profits more often than not have ulterior motives with the decisions they make. I wanted to bring it up for discussion, I find it very odd for HN to have a 'temporary ban' on a topic that is topically relevant and important to how the world works.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      I completely understand why you brought it up, I'm just trying to explain that you were and are still assuming bad faith. From my perspective, this is not very odd because HN is not a general purpose message board. The guidelines have always outlined what is on and off topic, and politics has always been considered off topic. It seems like a very reasonable experiment.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Im not assuming bad faith You specifically asked "What's the ulterior motive here?" which implies you think there is an ulterior motive. An ulterior motive would be acting in bad faith, since it would by definition be different than the expressed motive, since the reasoning was clearly expressed above. Presentation matters. Whether you meant it to be or not, your statement is somewhat inflammatory, for the reasons I just outlined. In my opinion, it's also a very good reason why the temporary ban is a good idea.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive, but we'd just be arguing semantics at that point. It'd be the same as assuming temporary ban = temporary censorship.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive I was very specific to outline an additional condition which I think makes all the difference, which is that you were presented with the reason for the action. Assuming an ulterior motive when you've already been given an explicit motive is assuming they are acting in bad faith, and that that they've provided a reason that does not match reality.
      - ProAm 10y ago
        Just because someone tells you the truth, it doesn't mean they are telling you the whole truth. I find this especially applicable in business. Companies the size and value of YC, I can easily see how we might get half the story sometimes. That was the basis of my question, I was skeptical about the reason dang gave hence the question.
        kbenson 10y ago
        You didn't question if there was an ulterior motive, you asked what it was. That's begging the question[1]. It's similar (in type, if not extremity) to asking "Have you beat your wife again?" Note how the question presupposes the person has beat their wife already. Your statement presupposes there is an ulterior motive, rather than asking if there is one. There is a distinct difference in the statements "Is there an ulterior motive?" and "What is the ulterior motive?". You may not have intended this, which is why my first reply specifically addressed that it may have been unintentional. > I was skeptical about the reason dang As to this, I'm not sure I have the same skepticism you do in this regard. HN has a history of flagging overly political stories, as it can often be hard to keep discussion civil. There seems to be less flagging of these as the election gets close, as it's more relevant to everyone involved, but trying to cut back after the election is past seems appropriate to me. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

It's amazing how quickly examples of the problem dang specifically mentioned have popped up, like this comment. Assuming bad faith without evidence is a big part of the issue here.

ProAm 10y ago

Im not assuming bad faith, just said I was skeptical. YC is a business and they are very interested in making money. Since the CEO of YC was very outspoken against one political candidate and now there is a week long ban I was just curious. Ive always seem YC as very open to intelligent honest discussion, so a ban like this seemed odd to me. That's why I asked the question, I probably could have phrased it better.

burkaman 10y ago
Asking "what's the ulterior motive" is assuming bad faith. It is equivalent to accusing someone of lying.
- ProAm 10y ago
  Not as much lying as having a hidden reason, and I think companies that who are very interested in profits more often than not have ulterior motives with the decisions they make. I wanted to bring it up for discussion, I find it very odd for HN to have a 'temporary ban' on a topic that is topically relevant and important to how the world works.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    I completely understand why you brought it up, I'm just trying to explain that you were and are still assuming bad faith. From my perspective, this is not very odd because HN is not a general purpose message board. The guidelines have always outlined what is on and off topic, and politics has always been considered off topic. It seems like a very reasonable experiment.
kbenson 10y ago
> Im not assuming bad faith You specifically asked "What's the ulterior motive here?" which implies you think there is an ulterior motive. An ulterior motive would be acting in bad faith, since it would by definition be different than the expressed motive, since the reasoning was clearly expressed above. Presentation matters. Whether you meant it to be or not, your statement is somewhat inflammatory, for the reasons I just outlined. In my opinion, it's also a very good reason why the temporary ban is a good idea.
- ProAm 10y ago
  I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive, but we'd just be arguing semantics at that point. It'd be the same as assuming temporary ban = temporary censorship.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > I don't believe bad faith as being the same as having ulterior motive I was very specific to outline an additional condition which I think makes all the difference, which is that you were presented with the reason for the action. Assuming an ulterior motive when you've already been given an explicit motive is assuming they are acting in bad faith, and that that they've provided a reason that does not match reality.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      Just because someone tells you the truth, it doesn't mean they are telling you the whole truth. I find this especially applicable in business. Companies the size and value of YC, I can easily see how we might get half the story sometimes. That was the basis of my question, I was skeptical about the reason dang gave hence the question.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        You didn't question if there was an ulterior motive, you asked what it was. That's begging the question[1]. It's similar (in type, if not extremity) to asking "Have you beat your wife again?" Note how the question presupposes the person has beat their wife already. Your statement presupposes there is an ulterior motive, rather than asking if there is one. There is a distinct difference in the statements "Is there an ulterior motive?" and "What is the ulterior motive?". You may not have intended this, which is why my first reply specifically addressed that it may have been unintentional. > I was skeptical about the reason dang As to this, I'm not sure I have the same skepticism you do in this regard. HN has a history of flagging overly political stories, as it can often be hard to keep discussion civil. There seems to be less flagging of these as the election gets close, as it's more relevant to everyone involved, but trying to cut back after the election is past seems appropriate to me. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question