3 ms·

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

by JackFr 9y ago

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.
    - thinkloop 9y ago
      Your article is informative and thought-provoking, only the analogy to cancer is a bit hyperbolic and unnecessary.

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

by JackFr 9y ago

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

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.
  - thinkloop 9y ago
    Your article is informative and thought-provoking, only the analogy to cancer is a bit hyperbolic and unnecessary.