5 ms·

Ridiculing is a form of shaming. It might even be the purest form of shaming. Shaming is to make one "embarrassed or guilty because of one's actions, character

Ridiculing is a form of shaming. It might even be the purest form of shaming. Shaming is to make one "embarrassed or guilty because of one's actions, characteristics, or associations." He's literally holding up this guy's character, "vanity, arrogance, incuriosity, laughably-abusrd..." I'm not sure what those characteristics have to do with the P=NP problem. I'm not saying, perhaps, this guy ought not to feel shame for his prior comments. Possibly he should. But this article is a shaming article. It isnt absolved of that because someone else started it.

throwanem 9y ago
"Shaming" denotes ridicule, sure, but is generally used to connote iniquity, i.e. that the one doing the "shaming" is wrong so to do. I think you're getting the pushback you are because you're using this word, with this connotation, to describe a deployment of ridicule whose degree of virtue seems less to you than to others, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837. Perhaps using other words might improve the light:heat ratio here. And even then the fact merits consideration that, in some cases, ridicule is earned.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  Well I've said several times that he may deserved to be shamed. > ridicule is earned Your comment only emphasises part of what I've already said. Of course however, he may not. A person who deploys the ridicule of a person's character (over said, the ridiculing of the idea that P=NP) is one who should be aware that this itself has moral downsides and is open to fair criticism.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Pretty sure Motl is being ridiculed for reasons other than not thinking it very unlikely that P=NP. The man seems to have earned a considerable degree of infamy through exactly the kind of behavior Aaronson calls out. And I think you may too casually gloss over the point around connotations; a cursory review of the history of privilege rhetoric would suggest there's more substance there than might initially seem to be, and I think this case is parallel.
  - lorenzhs 9y ago
    But isn't Scott's point that "he's an asshole but hear him out, he might have something interesting to say" isn't true because his arguments are intellectually dishonest? He's rejecting Luboš's claims based on a factual argument, garnished with a side of "that dude has issues", and not because he's an ass.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      True. "Also he's an ass" is severable.
mannykannot 9y ago
You may have a point about many applications of ridicule, especially when it is unjustified (i.e. the position being ridiculed is not actually ridiculous), but I think that if you had seen the whole exchange in this case, you would realize that there is little chance that Motl could be coerced into feeling shame by anything, and certainly not this - it's just banter. As there is clearly no possibility of inducing shame, then it seems unlikely that this was intended to do so, and so is not shaming (and if it was, then frankly, its use in this case does not bother me, though I don't think it will be successful.) But discussing whether this is shaming has no more to do with P=NP than the phrases you quote. On that, I think Aaronson has a point, but I don't think there is much to be gained through speculating about the possibilities. If you work in security, you should be aware that at some undetermined point in the future, anything dependent on P≠NP may no longer be dependable.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  > But discussing whether this is shaming has no more to do with P=NP than the phrases you quote. Yes, and? I'm writing comments about the article, not about P=NP. Since the article contains ridicule, comments about that seem well justified. I'm not a expert on complexity theory, nor have I claimed to be. The context of discussion in a comment section on an article is the article, not it's purported title. I haven't criticized the article, and yet people seem to be acting as-if I have. I've only described what it contains. I have made no judgement about it. > As there is clearly no possibility of inducing shame, then it seems unlikely that this was intended to do so, and so is not shaming I think you know how bad that argument is. The article contains what it contains.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    I am aware that you are not discussing the substantive issue, and I have not mistaken your comments as such - I merely disagree with your characterization of the article's language. > I think you know how bad that argument is. Intent is an essential element of shaming. If you have an argument to the contrary, you would be more persuasive if you were to state it, and not simply insinuate that there is one.

throwanem 9y ago

"Shaming" denotes ridicule, sure, but is generally used to connote iniquity, i.e. that the one doing the "shaming" is wrong so to do. I think you're getting the pushback you are because you're using this word, with this connotation, to describe a deployment of ridicule whose degree of virtue seems less to you than to others, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837. Perhaps using other words might improve the light:heat ratio here. And even then the fact merits consideration that, in some cases, ridicule is earned.

mjburgess 9y ago
Well I've said several times that he may deserved to be shamed. > ridicule is earned Your comment only emphasises part of what I've already said. Of course however, he may not. A person who deploys the ridicule of a person's character (over said, the ridiculing of the idea that P=NP) is one who should be aware that this itself has moral downsides and is open to fair criticism.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Pretty sure Motl is being ridiculed for reasons other than not thinking it very unlikely that P=NP. The man seems to have earned a considerable degree of infamy through exactly the kind of behavior Aaronson calls out. And I think you may too casually gloss over the point around connotations; a cursory review of the history of privilege rhetoric would suggest there's more substance there than might initially seem to be, and I think this case is parallel.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  But isn't Scott's point that "he's an asshole but hear him out, he might have something interesting to say" isn't true because his arguments are intellectually dishonest? He's rejecting Luboš's claims based on a factual argument, garnished with a side of "that dude has issues", and not because he's an ass.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    True. "Also he's an ass" is severable.

mannykannot 9y ago

You may have a point about many applications of ridicule, especially when it is unjustified (i.e. the position being ridiculed is not actually ridiculous), but I think that if you had seen the whole exchange in this case, you would realize that there is little chance that Motl could be coerced into feeling shame by anything, and certainly not this - it's just banter. As there is clearly no possibility of inducing shame, then it seems unlikely that this was intended to do so, and so is not shaming (and if it was, then frankly, its use in this case does not bother me, though I don't think it will be successful.) But discussing whether this is shaming has no more to do with P=NP than the phrases you quote. On that, I think Aaronson has a point, but I don't think there is much to be gained through speculating about the possibilities. If you work in security, you should be aware that at some undetermined point in the future, anything dependent on P≠NP may no longer be dependable.

mjburgess 9y ago
> But discussing whether this is shaming has no more to do with P=NP than the phrases you quote. Yes, and? I'm writing comments about the article, not about P=NP. Since the article contains ridicule, comments about that seem well justified. I'm not a expert on complexity theory, nor have I claimed to be. The context of discussion in a comment section on an article is the article, not it's purported title. I haven't criticized the article, and yet people seem to be acting as-if I have. I've only described what it contains. I have made no judgement about it. > As there is clearly no possibility of inducing shame, then it seems unlikely that this was intended to do so, and so is not shaming I think you know how bad that argument is. The article contains what it contains.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  I am aware that you are not discussing the substantive issue, and I have not mistaken your comments as such - I merely disagree with your characterization of the article's language. > I think you know how bad that argument is. Intent is an essential element of shaming. If you have an argument to the contrary, you would be more persuasive if you were to state it, and not simply insinuate that there is one.