4 ms·

TLDR Guy reads an interesting article that threatens his idea of success, incorrectly summarizes the article and resorts to personal attacks against the author

TLDR Guy reads an interesting article that threatens his idea of success, incorrectly summarizes the article and resorts to personal attacks against the author. Sounds like threatening core beliefs makes you defensive, not really a good commentary on the article itself.

Mz 9y ago
FYI: I am a woman. I am homeless. I get a lot of flak from people because I am not pro UBI when people seem to think I should be simply because I am homeless. Instead, I believe we need to view our current situation as The Second Industrial Revolution and do whatever the next evolutionary step is to make paid work a lighter burden while raising quality of living for the masses. I am pro gig work done right. Also, your comment is basically a personal attack.
- mod 9y ago
  > Also, your comment is basically a personal attack. Isn't yours? (The first one) He used your comment as a framework.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Mine is a criticism of the actual article. The reply to mine is a personal attack against me, a member of this site. This is generally understood to be a violation of the site guidelines, though they don't explicitly say "no ad hominems." In Comments Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - jhall1468 9y ago
      > Mine is a criticism of the actual article. No it wasn't. You literally claimed the author had a mental break down. That's not an attack on the article, it was a direct attack on him. I literally formed my comment exactly as you did to relay that point. You seemed to have taken such issue with the idea that the guy is lucky, you attacked him personally rather than attack his point. I don't entirely agree with the author. I don't entirely disagree with him. But if you want to make a point, attack his conclusions, not him.
      - Mz 9y ago
        Existential crisis and mental break down are not remotely the same thing. And noting that he seems to simply feel he somehow doesn't deserve this or feels guilty and his article is also not really well backed is a valid criticism. This piece looks to me like someone venting emotionally about their guilt at feeling they don't really deserve more than others. This is not really a good argument for creating basic income. Many people feel guilty for being born into wealth and privilege. That guilt is not some kind of objective evidence that basic income will solve the problems we currently face where we generally expect automation to eliminate certain jobs. It's fine for people to think basic income will be a good solution to the situation before us. I don't happen to agree with that position. But personal guilt and appealing to some just world fallacy is not a substantive argument for why we should try to make this happen.
        jhall1468 9y ago
        > And noting that he seems to simply feel he somehow doesn't deserve this At no point in the article does he say that. He simply stated he was lucky. He was born in a country that made it such that he would NEVER be able to end up like the workers he encountered. Thats absolutely true. That makes him (and you) lucky and certainly more successful relative to them. > his article is also not really well backed is a valid criticism This is a story about something personal, its not a scientific piece. His "backing" is simply that being born where he was, in part, is the reason he is where he is. That's not subjective, that's an absolute fact. > This piece looks to me like someone venting emotionally about their guilt at feeling they don't really deserve more than others. You are free to interpret it that way, but he never actually indicated anything you took from it. It seems your own perspective on basic income highly skewed your perspective before you started to read it, and everything he said was used to justify your preconceived notion. > Many people feel guilty for being born into wealth and privilege. I would imagine the majority don't. > That guilt is not some kind of objective evidence that basic income will solve the problems we currently face No, studies (some of which have recently began) will indicate whether or not basic income will work. This is an article about someones personal experience, once again, not a scholarly article or study. > It's fine for people to think basic income will be a good solution to the situation before us. I don't happen to agree with that position. Unlike you I think it's something that needs to be studied before I draw any conclusions. The irony here is your just as guilty as what you accuse the author of: you emotionally respond to something with zero evidence for (or in your case against) it.

Mz 9y ago

FYI: I am a woman. I am homeless. I get a lot of flak from people because I am not pro UBI when people seem to think I should be simply because I am homeless. Instead, I believe we need to view our current situation as The Second Industrial Revolution and do whatever the next evolutionary step is to make paid work a lighter burden while raising quality of living for the masses. I am pro gig work done right. Also, your comment is basically a personal attack.

mod 9y ago
> Also, your comment is basically a personal attack. Isn't yours? (The first one) He used your comment as a framework.
- Mz 9y ago
  Mine is a criticism of the actual article. The reply to mine is a personal attack against me, a member of this site. This is generally understood to be a violation of the site guidelines, though they don't explicitly say "no ad hominems." In Comments Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - jhall1468 9y ago
    > Mine is a criticism of the actual article. No it wasn't. You literally claimed the author had a mental break down. That's not an attack on the article, it was a direct attack on him. I literally formed my comment exactly as you did to relay that point. You seemed to have taken such issue with the idea that the guy is lucky, you attacked him personally rather than attack his point. I don't entirely agree with the author. I don't entirely disagree with him. But if you want to make a point, attack his conclusions, not him.
    - Mz 9y ago
      Existential crisis and mental break down are not remotely the same thing. And noting that he seems to simply feel he somehow doesn't deserve this or feels guilty and his article is also not really well backed is a valid criticism. This piece looks to me like someone venting emotionally about their guilt at feeling they don't really deserve more than others. This is not really a good argument for creating basic income. Many people feel guilty for being born into wealth and privilege. That guilt is not some kind of objective evidence that basic income will solve the problems we currently face where we generally expect automation to eliminate certain jobs. It's fine for people to think basic income will be a good solution to the situation before us. I don't happen to agree with that position. But personal guilt and appealing to some just world fallacy is not a substantive argument for why we should try to make this happen.
      - jhall1468 9y ago
        > And noting that he seems to simply feel he somehow doesn't deserve this At no point in the article does he say that. He simply stated he was lucky. He was born in a country that made it such that he would NEVER be able to end up like the workers he encountered. Thats absolutely true. That makes him (and you) lucky and certainly more successful relative to them. > his article is also not really well backed is a valid criticism This is a story about something personal, its not a scientific piece. His "backing" is simply that being born where he was, in part, is the reason he is where he is. That's not subjective, that's an absolute fact. > This piece looks to me like someone venting emotionally about their guilt at feeling they don't really deserve more than others. You are free to interpret it that way, but he never actually indicated anything you took from it. It seems your own perspective on basic income highly skewed your perspective before you started to read it, and everything he said was used to justify your preconceived notion. > Many people feel guilty for being born into wealth and privilege. I would imagine the majority don't. > That guilt is not some kind of objective evidence that basic income will solve the problems we currently face No, studies (some of which have recently began) will indicate whether or not basic income will work. This is an article about someones personal experience, once again, not a scholarly article or study. > It's fine for people to think basic income will be a good solution to the situation before us. I don't happen to agree with that position. Unlike you I think it's something that needs to be studied before I draw any conclusions. The irony here is your just as guilty as what you accuse the author of: you emotionally respond to something with zero evidence for (or in your case against) it.