4 ms·

Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue t

Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue that there must be a problem with their products, without backing up or clarifying that assertion. Imagine if people started their posts with 'Facebook, who hate privacy, have just...', or 'Apple, who hate freedom, have now...', or 'Google, who are spying on you, are about to...' That would be pretty pathetic.

stcredzero 16y ago
Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money' What we have here is a de-facto "putting words into other people's mouths." What that means to me is, "Microsoft, who has money." It was meant in an informal and not a slur. In any case, how in the world can you be "ad hominem" against a corporation? Where in my comment, or in my entire history of comments is there any kind of sentiment of the kind you describe. If anything, my position towards Microsoft has always been, "they're clueless about UX."
- NickPollard 16y ago
  I am sorry if I misinterpreted you, but prior to this instance I have only ever seen 'M$' used in a derogatory fashion. Regardless, I feel that it doesn't add anything to the discussion that just saying 'MS' or 'Microsoft' would have. As an aside, I don't see anything strange about an ad hominem against a corporation, it's still an attack against the source of the argument and not the argument itself. Plus, a corporation is after all a legal person.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Regardless, I feel that it doesn't add anything to the discussion that just saying 'MS' or 'Microsoft' would have. I am glad you admitted your putting words into my mouth. Let me note that this resulted in quite a few meta-comments! I could not let your mischaracterization go unchallenged. Note also that your mischaracterization is itself a meta-comment. Had it not been written in the first place, it would have benefitted the S/N ratio of HN dramatically!
raganwald 16y ago
Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue that there must be a problem with their products, without backing up or clarifying that assertion. Your description of the alleged meaning of this nickname is similar to my understanding of an ad hominem, however it differs in substantial ways. When Microsoft is the subject of a discussion, an assertion about their motivations is not an ad hominem: An assertion about one of the persons participating in the debate would be an ad hominem. So what we have is an assertion about Microsoft's motivations and an unfounded argument that this is the cause for some perceived product woes. This is clearly weak rhetoric (and trivially fallacious: Apple seems to do just fine lusting after money). But I am left rubbing my chin in confusion by your assertion that using the nickname automatically means that you're arguing that there is a problem with their products. My understanding is that the problem with their products is that have no taste. Someone using "M$" could be thinking that their avarice means that they behave in monopolistic ways, or that they have a certain type of internal company culture, or any number of things. But there is no need to assume what they are saying or to jump to some conclusion about what they are claiming: I can simply read what they write. If they write "M$ are unable to ship good products," I can argue with that statement directly instead of arguing with their use of the nickname. As for your second paragraph... Wow. Imagine if I were to make up a whole list of things that people are not saying and use it to stir up all kinds of emotional feelings as a way of trying to convince you that using a nickname I don't like was pathetic. Would that add to the discussion? I think I am going to stop right here. I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. You see a nickname dragging all sorts of baggage and claims and unfounded arguments around. You feel the need to exert social pressure to eliminate it, including characterizing it in an insulting fashion ("juvenile"). I understand what you are saying, and that is quite enough for me.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  He didn't characterize the comment as 'juvenile', that was me. Pay attention to the commenters' names. :) >I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. The original commenter clarified that it meant something along the lines of 'Microsoft, who has money'. That shows that it's a term that can result in a lot of confusion, but I have seen it mostly used as a put down by people who think it's cool to use it.

Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue that there must be a problem with their products, without backing up or clarifying that assertion. Imagine if people started their posts with 'Facebook, who hate privacy, have just...', or 'Apple, who hate freedom, have now...', or 'Google, who are spying on you, are about to...' That would be pretty pathetic.

stcredzero 16y ago

Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money' What we have here is a de-facto "putting words into other people's mouths." What that means to me is, "Microsoft, who has money." It was meant in an informal and not a slur. In any case, how in the world can you be "ad hominem" against a corporation? Where in my comment, or in my entire history of comments is there any kind of sentiment of the kind you describe. If anything, my position towards Microsoft has always been, "they're clueless about UX."

NickPollard 16y ago
I am sorry if I misinterpreted you, but prior to this instance I have only ever seen 'M$' used in a derogatory fashion. Regardless, I feel that it doesn't add anything to the discussion that just saying 'MS' or 'Microsoft' would have. As an aside, I don't see anything strange about an ad hominem against a corporation, it's still an attack against the source of the argument and not the argument itself. Plus, a corporation is after all a legal person.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Regardless, I feel that it doesn't add anything to the discussion that just saying 'MS' or 'Microsoft' would have. I am glad you admitted your putting words into my mouth. Let me note that this resulted in quite a few meta-comments! I could not let your mischaracterization go unchallenged. Note also that your mischaracterization is itself a meta-comment. Had it not been written in the first place, it would have benefitted the S/N ratio of HN dramatically!

raganwald 16y ago

Using M$ is pretty much a defacto ad hominem - it means you're leading your position by saying 'Microsoft only care about money', and then using that to argue that there must be a problem with their products, without backing up or clarifying that assertion. Your description of the alleged meaning of this nickname is similar to my understanding of an ad hominem, however it differs in substantial ways. When Microsoft is the subject of a discussion, an assertion about their motivations is not an ad hominem: An assertion about one of the persons participating in the debate would be an ad hominem. So what we have is an assertion about Microsoft's motivations and an unfounded argument that this is the cause for some perceived product woes. This is clearly weak rhetoric (and trivially fallacious: Apple seems to do just fine lusting after money). But I am left rubbing my chin in confusion by your assertion that using the nickname automatically means that you're arguing that there is a problem with their products. My understanding is that the problem with their products is that have no taste. Someone using "M$" could be thinking that their avarice means that they behave in monopolistic ways, or that they have a certain type of internal company culture, or any number of things. But there is no need to assume what they are saying or to jump to some conclusion about what they are claiming: I can simply read what they write. If they write "M$ are unable to ship good products," I can argue with that statement directly instead of arguing with their use of the nickname. As for your second paragraph... Wow. Imagine if I were to make up a whole list of things that people are not saying and use it to stir up all kinds of emotional feelings as a way of trying to convince you that using a nickname I don't like was pathetic. Would that add to the discussion? I think I am going to stop right here. I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. You see a nickname dragging all sorts of baggage and claims and unfounded arguments around. You feel the need to exert social pressure to eliminate it, including characterizing it in an insulting fashion ("juvenile"). I understand what you are saying, and that is quite enough for me.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
He didn't characterize the comment as 'juvenile', that was me. Pay attention to the commenters' names. :) >I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. The original commenter clarified that it meant something along the lines of 'Microsoft, who has money'. That shows that it's a term that can result in a lot of confusion, but I have seen it mostly used as a put down by people who think it's cool to use it.