4 ms·

So... I've got a weird and evolving philosophy about those sorts of arguments in general, which is what led to me taking most versions down, and why I'm not rea

by bbctol 9y ago

So... I've got a weird and evolving philosophy about those sorts of arguments in general, which is what led to me taking most versions down, and why I'm not really comfortable with spreading them any more either. (And why I feel bad about getting so mad over this, too.) I really do think that people on the Internet underestimate how much making a persuasive and well-sourced argument is about the skill of the arguer, rather than the ground truth. That's one of the reasons Breitbart and Bannon have been so successful, and why trying to combat that with persuasive and well-sourced arguments isn't really a good idea morally or practically. My advice now if you're curious about what Bannon thinks or what Breitbart really does is: don't start from a position that they're bad, don't believe the media frenzy, don't follow the line of reasoning of people you agree with, definitely don't assume they're neo-Nazis or white nationalists, don't go out looking for arguments one way or another. You just have to start at neutral and spend a ton of time reading Breitbart, listening to his radio episodes, reading what former Breitbart workers have to say, getting savvy to how the community thinks, and, if you can stomach it, using the anonymity of the internet to ingratiate yourself to online fascists until they open up. That's how I did it, anyway. Not sure I can actually recommend it. Basically, I think I really would rather people did their own research and came to conclusions I might disagree with than listen to my arguments and evidence. Which is the sort of frustrating thing to say that leads people who want to be told what to think to conclude that everything I believe is bullshit. Oh well. Back to taking a break from writing/getting mad on the internet.

tambienben 9y ago
It basically is bullshit if you have nothing to show for it. I could say I'm ex-MI6 and call you names the whole while you didnt believe me. I could tell you that you should try and figure out whether I was or wasnt yourself. No one will bother. I think you've spent too much time hanging around thick-headed individuals. HN is not filled with the self-serving types of people you're describing. Commenters are eagerly awaiting support for your point of view, and you're practically spitting in their eye. No one will care what you have to say after that.
- bbctol 9y ago
  My goal is to make sure no one cares about what I (or another) has to say.
  - adjkant 9y ago
    There's a big difference between caring about what someone says and looking for information. Your comment implied your article was mostly compiled information. At the very least I think you should consider releasing a research sheet of sorts with the sources you used/found, and which people can investigate themselves. Sure, the collection still has a narrative, but if you avoid all bias, you will avoid everything. Everything has a perspective, and whats important is that a reader can properly parse and consider that perspective, not that content is devoid of it. It's okay to not agree with an approach or argument you used before, or even the why of the existence of either. But it doesn't mean all of the content is useless.

by bbctol 9y ago

tambienben 9y ago

It basically is bullshit if you have nothing to show for it. I could say I'm ex-MI6 and call you names the whole while you didnt believe me. I could tell you that you should try and figure out whether I was or wasnt yourself. No one will bother. I think you've spent too much time hanging around thick-headed individuals. HN is not filled with the self-serving types of people you're describing. Commenters are eagerly awaiting support for your point of view, and you're practically spitting in their eye. No one will care what you have to say after that.

bbctol 9y ago
My goal is to make sure no one cares about what I (or another) has to say.
- adjkant 9y ago
  There's a big difference between caring about what someone says and looking for information. Your comment implied your article was mostly compiled information. At the very least I think you should consider releasing a research sheet of sorts with the sources you used/found, and which people can investigate themselves. Sure, the collection still has a narrative, but if you avoid all bias, you will avoid everything. Everything has a perspective, and whats important is that a reader can properly parse and consider that perspective, not that content is devoid of it. It's okay to not agree with an approach or argument you used before, or even the why of the existence of either. But it doesn't mean all of the content is useless.