10 ms·

> I used to be as against ads as you are, and then I tried to start a business > Overall, I'm in mild agreement that society would be better if it weren't ad-d

> I used to be as against ads as you are, and then I tried to start a business > Overall, I'm in mild agreement that society would be better if it weren't ad-driven, but that's a utopian ideal Sounds like the typical conservative spiel. "I used to be idealist like you once, but then I realized how the world really works and sold out". There's a short mini-doc freely available out there, made by an heir of the Johnson & Johnson family, about the 1%. He was inspired to do this partly because his father had, in his day, gone out of his way and caused trouble by participating in some controversial (at the time) anti-apartheid demonstrations. However, he was now berating his son for his "idealism" in discussing the issue of inequality, coming off as insanely hypocritical in the process. It's a really poor way of arguing a point, imo.

dahart 9y ago
> Sounds like the typical conservative spiel. That's hilarious; most people who know me consider me a socialist. > There's a short mini-doc I've seen it, and it's fantastic. It's not about advertising. > It's a really poor way of arguing a point, imo. That's hilarious coming on the heels of an ad-hominem. Do you have any counter argument? Poor as it is, it's true, I'm sharing my feelings as someone with experience on both sides. The person I replied to, and you, and me, we all have the power within us to make ads irrelevant to our lives. And yet we don't. Why? The person I replied to seems to suggest he has an inalienable right to consume free content. Is that true? Does he deserve high quality free content, ad-free? Is it really the advertisers' fault that ads exist? Do you believe that taxing advertisers is the solution to reducing the scourge of ads? Anyway, I've upvoted you for making me laugh.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  First, you sound like an american, so being called "socialist" doesn't really mean anything. Center-right, Center, and center-left politicians are routinely called "socialist" in the US. Additionally, it's not an ad-hominem when I'm criticizing the form your appeal is taking. "I'm being ad-hommed!" is another telltale sign of someone who thinks they're better at rhetoric than they actually are. As for the matter in question, many of us do use advertisement blockers, and when the content is truly paywalled, we engage in required transactions to obtain access to it. It's risible that you consider yourself a socialist when you unironically spin the peddling of addictive clickbait garbage as "consuming free high-quality content". As bizarre a way to describe Facebook or Buzzfeed as I've ever witnessed. Taxing ads, and outright banning them from targeting anyone but adults, seem like nice first steps.
  - dahart 9y ago
    Man, I don't know what I did to trigger your animosity. I agree ads should be taxed. What else do you want? Why are you trying to take me down? > Taxing ads, and outright banning them from targeting anyone but adults, seem like nice first steps. I agree with that. What's your beef? > Additionally, it's not an ad-hominem when I'm criticizing the form your appeal is taking. Yes it is, that's exactly what an ad hominem is, you just nearly recited the definition. It is an argument against the person, rather than the position they are maintaining. That's what you did, you criticized me for sounding like a "typical conservative". That is an ad hominem argument. > First, you sound like an american, so being called "socialist" doesn't really mean anything. That's also an ad hominem argument. You're not asking me what I mean by "socialist", you're not trying to argue on the merits of socialism vs capitalism, you're claiming that my point is invalid because I sound American. You don't know I'm American, and it doesn't matter if I am American, because socialism is objectively something left of liberal and distinct from capitalism. But you claim to know better by assumption of association. It doesn't get any more ad-hominem than that. I don't know what country you live in, but I disagree wildly with the statement that being called "socialist" doesn't really mean anything. You seem to lack experience in this matter. Socialism is a dirty word in the US, and people win elections by calling their opponents or their positions socialist. (Also ad-hominem) > As for the matter in question, many of us do use advertisement blockers Yes, I use ad blockers too. > It's risible that you consider yourself a socialist when you unironically spin the peddling of addictive clickbait garbage I'm very confused by your argument. If what we're talking about is garbage, then what is the problem? If you're not viewing the "garbage" in question, why are you so angry about it? > As bizarre a way to describe Facebook or Buzzfeed as I've ever witnessed. I never said Facebook or Buzzfeed, nor did I anywhere suggest that all ad-driven content is high quality. I'm in complete agreement that most of the content is bad and most of the ads attached are too. You are making vast assumptions in your attempts to disprove what you imagine I'm saying, without bothering to check if it's really what I'm saying.
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      Hey, you started this. You called me, by careless and casual implication, a utopian. I don't take kindly to being called naive for maintaining a inflexible yet reasonable and policy-driven stance on curbing the toxic impact of advertising in our society, especially from people who claim they've "graduated" from my current stance. My utter disdain of ads isn't really tied to their impact on my life. I'm more concerned with all the manipulative ways in which they pressure people less prepared to deal with them than me into short-term relief by purchasing wasteful crap. By getting some content "for free", I am actually being subsidized by some poor sap throwing their money away on some fad propped up by a media campaign concocted by a team of advertisers and sellout psychologists. Moreover, this worthless conspicuous consumption is a huge driver of the kind of activity that damages the environment, so there's that angle too.
sctb 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14366840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14366840 and marked it off-topic.

dahart 9y ago

> Sounds like the typical conservative spiel. That's hilarious; most people who know me consider me a socialist. > There's a short mini-doc I've seen it, and it's fantastic. It's not about advertising. > It's a really poor way of arguing a point, imo. That's hilarious coming on the heels of an ad-hominem. Do you have any counter argument? Poor as it is, it's true, I'm sharing my feelings as someone with experience on both sides. The person I replied to, and you, and me, we all have the power within us to make ads irrelevant to our lives. And yet we don't. Why? The person I replied to seems to suggest he has an inalienable right to consume free content. Is that true? Does he deserve high quality free content, ad-free? Is it really the advertisers' fault that ads exist? Do you believe that taxing advertisers is the solution to reducing the scourge of ads? Anyway, I've upvoted you for making me laugh.

RodericDay 9y ago
First, you sound like an american, so being called "socialist" doesn't really mean anything. Center-right, Center, and center-left politicians are routinely called "socialist" in the US. Additionally, it's not an ad-hominem when I'm criticizing the form your appeal is taking. "I'm being ad-hommed!" is another telltale sign of someone who thinks they're better at rhetoric than they actually are. As for the matter in question, many of us do use advertisement blockers, and when the content is truly paywalled, we engage in required transactions to obtain access to it. It's risible that you consider yourself a socialist when you unironically spin the peddling of addictive clickbait garbage as "consuming free high-quality content". As bizarre a way to describe Facebook or Buzzfeed as I've ever witnessed. Taxing ads, and outright banning them from targeting anyone but adults, seem like nice first steps.
- dahart 9y ago
  Man, I don't know what I did to trigger your animosity. I agree ads should be taxed. What else do you want? Why are you trying to take me down? > Taxing ads, and outright banning them from targeting anyone but adults, seem like nice first steps. I agree with that. What's your beef? > Additionally, it's not an ad-hominem when I'm criticizing the form your appeal is taking. Yes it is, that's exactly what an ad hominem is, you just nearly recited the definition. It is an argument against the person, rather than the position they are maintaining. That's what you did, you criticized me for sounding like a "typical conservative". That is an ad hominem argument. > First, you sound like an american, so being called "socialist" doesn't really mean anything. That's also an ad hominem argument. You're not asking me what I mean by "socialist", you're not trying to argue on the merits of socialism vs capitalism, you're claiming that my point is invalid because I sound American. You don't know I'm American, and it doesn't matter if I am American, because socialism is objectively something left of liberal and distinct from capitalism. But you claim to know better by assumption of association. It doesn't get any more ad-hominem than that. I don't know what country you live in, but I disagree wildly with the statement that being called "socialist" doesn't really mean anything. You seem to lack experience in this matter. Socialism is a dirty word in the US, and people win elections by calling their opponents or their positions socialist. (Also ad-hominem) > As for the matter in question, many of us do use advertisement blockers Yes, I use ad blockers too. > It's risible that you consider yourself a socialist when you unironically spin the peddling of addictive clickbait garbage I'm very confused by your argument. If what we're talking about is garbage, then what is the problem? If you're not viewing the "garbage" in question, why are you so angry about it? > As bizarre a way to describe Facebook or Buzzfeed as I've ever witnessed. I never said Facebook or Buzzfeed, nor did I anywhere suggest that all ad-driven content is high quality. I'm in complete agreement that most of the content is bad and most of the ads attached are too. You are making vast assumptions in your attempts to disprove what you imagine I'm saying, without bothering to check if it's really what I'm saying.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    Hey, you started this. You called me, by careless and casual implication, a utopian. I don't take kindly to being called naive for maintaining a inflexible yet reasonable and policy-driven stance on curbing the toxic impact of advertising in our society, especially from people who claim they've "graduated" from my current stance. My utter disdain of ads isn't really tied to their impact on my life. I'm more concerned with all the manipulative ways in which they pressure people less prepared to deal with them than me into short-term relief by purchasing wasteful crap. By getting some content "for free", I am actually being subsidized by some poor sap throwing their money away on some fad propped up by a media campaign concocted by a team of advertisers and sellout psychologists. Moreover, this worthless conspicuous consumption is a huge driver of the kind of activity that damages the environment, so there's that angle too.

sctb 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14366840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14366840 and marked it off-topic.