6 ms·

"Sounds like cancer doesn't it" Causes me to immediately stop listening and start doubting everything you said and claim, questioning your motive. It is an em

"Sounds like cancer doesn't it" Causes me to immediately stop listening and start doubting everything you said and claim, questioning your motive. It is an emotional appeal. Which 1) insults my intelligence, thinking I'm stupid an unaware enough to fall for that. And one or more of the following 2) you're too stupid or poor at arguing that you don't know you're doing it 3) the facts don't support your side so you try to rile up the ignorant and gulliabl to win 4) you don't care about argument / have other motives like fame, clicks, distraction from other issues.

lisper 9y ago
It's also an insult to people with actual cancer.
- libria 9y ago
  Why is that? People with deadly viruses aren't insulted that we call malevolent programs computer viruses. Equating my laptop with a human would be insulting, but I don't think that was done here.
  - lisper 9y ago
    Because real cancer kills people. Wikimedia spending more money is not going to result in anyone actually dying. Calling it a cancer trivializes the pain and suffering of people with actual cancer and their families.
    - elect_engineer 9y ago
      I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I am myself a cancer survivor, and I have received multiple emails from other Wikipedians who have cancer saying that they have no problem with my essay title.
      - lisper 9y ago
        I've been very fortunate never to have had cancer, and to only ever know one person who did. But she'd dead now so I can't ask her for her opinion. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.
slim 9y ago
The original title to that essay when it was published was : Wikipedia has cancer. Hence that sentence. Now that sentence does not make any sense. Author must have forgotten it when he changed the title
- elect_engineer 9y ago
  I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I would prefer that this thread have the same title as my essay. The replacement title("Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth") only tells part of the story. My essay is not only about spending, but also on the lack of transparency, the dependence on revenues increasing exponentially with no plans for dealing with a downturn, the spectacularly poor quality of the software that we are spending millions on, and the deceptive banners asking for donations. Please restore the original title.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JackFr 9y ago
It's not an emotional appeal, it's simultaneously a rhetorical device and a pretty neat analogy.
- 13yo_rhetoric 9y ago
  I guess there are different ways to read it. You could say the same of anything you don't like that grows at a superlinear rate. Given our tendency to not like things, and the tendency of things to grow at a superlinear rate, the analogy is non-specific, and hardly neat. For me, it echoes the tendency of every angry child on the internet to call things they don't like "cancer." Edginess of this kind does not speak to me.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  I don't like X, and it is growing = cancer, is the full depth of the analogy. Pretty weak. Unlike cancer, we wouldn't want to eliminate 100% of expenses. Unlike cancer, expenses are necessary for survival. Unlike cancer, it's possible expenses should be growing faster, to fuel growth or whatever - this is the argument that needs to be made. Calling something cancer this loosely, is very close to the annoyance of invoking Hitler so quickly. "I don't know about all dem der hosting costs you speak of, but I sure as hell don't like that cancer"
  - aunty_helen 9y ago
    >I don't like X, and it is growing unabated like cancer I think this is much more closer to the actual point he's making. Also I'm not sure that condescending the author when they've actually put a lot of effort into sighting their claims and spelt out what their point is clearly and coherently, is necessary.
    - elect_engineer 9y ago
      I am the author of the essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". I did put a lot of effort into documenting my claims, and I would encourage anyone interested in clicking on the links in the essay. In particular, I have documented what others have said about Wikipedia financials, and some of those pages are rather good. Whether you agree with me or not, I would ask everyone to keep an eye out for any factual errors so that I can correct them.

lisper 9y ago

It's also an insult to people with actual cancer.

libria 9y ago
Why is that? People with deadly viruses aren't insulted that we call malevolent programs computer viruses. Equating my laptop with a human would be insulting, but I don't think that was done here.
- lisper 9y ago
  Because real cancer kills people. Wikimedia spending more money is not going to result in anyone actually dying. Calling it a cancer trivializes the pain and suffering of people with actual cancer and their families.
  - elect_engineer 9y ago
    I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I am myself a cancer survivor, and I have received multiple emails from other Wikipedians who have cancer saying that they have no problem with my essay title.
    - lisper 9y ago
      I've been very fortunate never to have had cancer, and to only ever know one person who did. But she'd dead now so I can't ask her for her opinion. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.

slim 9y ago

The original title to that essay when it was published was : Wikipedia has cancer. Hence that sentence. Now that sentence does not make any sense. Author must have forgotten it when he changed the title

elect_engineer 9y ago
I am the author of the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". For the record, I would prefer that this thread have the same title as my essay. The replacement title("Wikimedia Foundation's runaway spending growth") only tells part of the story. My essay is not only about spending, but also on the lack of transparency, the dependence on revenues increasing exponentially with no plans for dealing with a downturn, the spectacularly poor quality of the software that we are spending millions on, and the deceptive banners asking for donations. Please restore the original title.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JackFr 9y ago

It's not an emotional appeal, it's simultaneously a rhetorical device and a pretty neat analogy.

13yo_rhetoric 9y ago
I guess there are different ways to read it. You could say the same of anything you don't like that grows at a superlinear rate. Given our tendency to not like things, and the tendency of things to grow at a superlinear rate, the analogy is non-specific, and hardly neat. For me, it echoes the tendency of every angry child on the internet to call things they don't like "cancer." Edginess of this kind does not speak to me.
thinkloop 9y ago
I don't like X, and it is growing = cancer, is the full depth of the analogy. Pretty weak. Unlike cancer, we wouldn't want to eliminate 100% of expenses. Unlike cancer, expenses are necessary for survival. Unlike cancer, it's possible expenses should be growing faster, to fuel growth or whatever - this is the argument that needs to be made. Calling something cancer this loosely, is very close to the annoyance of invoking Hitler so quickly. "I don't know about all dem der hosting costs you speak of, but I sure as hell don't like that cancer"
- aunty_helen 9y ago
  >I don't like X, and it is growing unabated like cancer I think this is much more closer to the actual point he's making. Also I'm not sure that condescending the author when they've actually put a lot of effort into sighting their claims and spelt out what their point is clearly and coherently, is necessary.
  - elect_engineer 9y ago
    I am the author of the essay "Wikipedia has Cancer". I did put a lot of effort into documenting my claims, and I would encourage anyone interested in clicking on the links in the essay. In particular, I have documented what others have said about Wikipedia financials, and some of those pages are rather good. Whether you agree with me or not, I would ask everyone to keep an eye out for any factual errors so that I can correct them.