4 ms·

This is a fairly classic ad hominem comment. What difference does it make who makes this argument, if the argument itself is sound? On the other hand, if the m

This is a fairly classic ad hominem comment. What difference does it make who makes this argument, if the argument itself is sound? On the other hand, if the man is 50% saint, 50% angel, and 50% genius, what difference would that make, if the argument itself was terrible? Comments suggesting that he shouldn't make this argument do not actually address the argument itself. In the best case, they are a distraction from the subject being discussed. In the worst case, they are a form of tone policing, which is a tactic for silencing sound arguments by complaining that they are not being made by the right people, or in the right way. Example: A man murders another man. The police torture him into a confession. He complains about the torture. Is he the last person that should be complaining about violence? But if not him, who? Must we wait for the perfect angel of an innocent victim of police brutality, before we act on it?

kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago
It does make a difference when you believe that the reason Dash is making this kind of argument is because of his life experiences (or lack thereof). The general point Dash is trying to make about moderating communities is fine. But it's easy to preach about not allowing assholes when you don't consider yourself to be one. The day the zeitgeist shifts considerably in the favor of assessing him as an asshole, I suspect Dash might sing a very different tune about site moderation policies.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  The comment said he shouldn't make the argument. That's one kind of ad hominem, a tu quoque You're (possibly unwittingly) making another, an ad hominem circumstantial, by questioning his motives. It's always best to just debate the argument itself and leave the author's character and motives and misconceptions out of it. Otherwise we end up spending a lot of time discussing Mr. Dash, instead of discussing moderation of online communities,.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    It really is as simple as Dash’s online behavior being “assholish”. It’s on the topic of the post, he’s just an extreme example of the behavior he’s lambasting.
    - braythwayt 7y ago
      Whether I agree or disagree with your characterization of him, what does that have to do with whether people who run online communities should be responsible for moderating them? It isn't on topic, unless you want to say, "Since Dash is an asshole, that is proof that there exists at least one asshole on the internet, which supports part of the argument he makes." The premise of the argument is that moderation is a moral imperative. Nothing about Mr. Dash's character supports or refutes that argument.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        It matters because his calls for centralizing control of the discussion on a site through strong moderation gives him a lever to pull through social media outrage. Without all of the moderation tools he suggests in this post, he could try to shame the site owners to silence a point of view he doesn't like (which he does regularly) and they wouldn't technically be able to do anything about it. The more moderation tools he can get people to put in place, the easier it will be to lead the mobs to the front door of the moderators.
        braythwayt 7y ago
        That is a reasonable argument to make, but it is made better by leaving him out of it. Simply state, "The problem with moderation is that it can be used as a hammer to ban dissent, &c. &c." Put like that, there is no ad hominem, and it can be debated on its merits. By the way, the most amusing thing about that argument is that we would be debating it on a moderated platform, that we both use precisely because it is moderated. If HN was unmoderated, it would cease to be valuable to the people currently using HN.
zzo38computer 7y ago
I agree with you that it does not matter who makes this argument (even though I do not entirely agree with the argument being made, but that has nothing to do with who makes such argument). (Even if someone write a computer program or book or movie or whatever but they are murderer and whatever, if the program/book/movie is good then it is good, anyways. And if it is no good, then it is no good, anyways.)
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It matters because Dash has an agenda that’s not apparent if you just read this post without further context. He’s a fairly extreme political activist who often calls for censorship of views he doesn’t agree with. This post lays the framework for centralizing control of the dialogue on a site. His behavior suggest this works in his favor as he can leverage social media to silence those he disagrees with.
asfarley 7y ago
This might be a case where there's overlap between ad-hominem attacks and a relevant critique of the argument itself. I interpret the comment as: "if the author can't follow his own guidance, or if the author's own compliance with this guidance is subjective, the guidance may not be given in good faith". The comment is not just saying asshole=wrong. It's saying that Anil Dash may be a hypocrite, and thus unable to propose good social policies. The discussion (to me) seems more moral or social rather than technical. In cases of moral or social judgements, are you sure you completely reject ad-hominem points? It seems to me that a fully Bayesian perspective requires considering ad-hominem attacks; if the source emitting the message is considered untrustworthy, should we discard that information?
makomk 7y ago
It makes all the difference in the world who's making this argument. He relies heavily on the idea that there's some universal category of "assholes" that websites should ban, and that if any website doesn't it's their fault and everyone should pressure them to fall in line. There is no such universal category that everyone agrees on. So what he's really arguing is that people who he considers assholes should be banned by every decent website that wants to receive advertising money, and it's impossible to seperate that argument from his specific moral values and actions.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  In my opinion, your comment is stronger if you simply state: [This argument] relies heavily on the idea that there's some universal category of "assholes" that websites should ban, and that if any website doesn't it's their fault and everyone should pressure them to fall in line. [However,] there is no such universal category that everyone agrees on. That is simple, direct, and leaves him out of it. And I believe it is better without dragging his character and motives into it.
  - makomk 7y ago
    That argument doesn't work. Obviously the assholes won't agree that they should be banned, and you can just argue - as he does in this post - that anyone who doesn't think the supposed assholes should be banned is doing so because they're one of them. Judging the merits of this really does mean thinking about the actual concrete values that he's fighting for.

kinkrtyavimoodh 7y ago

It does make a difference when you believe that the reason Dash is making this kind of argument is because of his life experiences (or lack thereof). The general point Dash is trying to make about moderating communities is fine. But it's easy to preach about not allowing assholes when you don't consider yourself to be one. The day the zeitgeist shifts considerably in the favor of assessing him as an asshole, I suspect Dash might sing a very different tune about site moderation policies.

braythwayt 7y ago
The comment said he shouldn't make the argument. That's one kind of ad hominem, a tu quoque You're (possibly unwittingly) making another, an ad hominem circumstantial, by questioning his motives. It's always best to just debate the argument itself and leave the author's character and motives and misconceptions out of it. Otherwise we end up spending a lot of time discussing Mr. Dash, instead of discussing moderation of online communities,.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It really is as simple as Dash’s online behavior being “assholish”. It’s on the topic of the post, he’s just an extreme example of the behavior he’s lambasting.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    Whether I agree or disagree with your characterization of him, what does that have to do with whether people who run online communities should be responsible for moderating them? It isn't on topic, unless you want to say, "Since Dash is an asshole, that is proof that there exists at least one asshole on the internet, which supports part of the argument he makes." The premise of the argument is that moderation is a moral imperative. Nothing about Mr. Dash's character supports or refutes that argument.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      It matters because his calls for centralizing control of the discussion on a site through strong moderation gives him a lever to pull through social media outrage. Without all of the moderation tools he suggests in this post, he could try to shame the site owners to silence a point of view he doesn't like (which he does regularly) and they wouldn't technically be able to do anything about it. The more moderation tools he can get people to put in place, the easier it will be to lead the mobs to the front door of the moderators.
      - braythwayt 7y ago
        That is a reasonable argument to make, but it is made better by leaving him out of it. Simply state, "The problem with moderation is that it can be used as a hammer to ban dissent, &c. &c." Put like that, there is no ad hominem, and it can be debated on its merits. By the way, the most amusing thing about that argument is that we would be debating it on a moderated platform, that we both use precisely because it is moderated. If HN was unmoderated, it would cease to be valuable to the people currently using HN.

zzo38computer 7y ago

I agree with you that it does not matter who makes this argument (even though I do not entirely agree with the argument being made, but that has nothing to do with who makes such argument). (Even if someone write a computer program or book or movie or whatever but they are murderer and whatever, if the program/book/movie is good then it is good, anyways. And if it is no good, then it is no good, anyways.)

malvosenior 7y ago
It matters because Dash has an agenda that’s not apparent if you just read this post without further context. He’s a fairly extreme political activist who often calls for censorship of views he doesn’t agree with. This post lays the framework for centralizing control of the dialogue on a site. His behavior suggest this works in his favor as he can leverage social media to silence those he disagrees with.

asfarley 7y ago

This might be a case where there's overlap between ad-hominem attacks and a relevant critique of the argument itself. I interpret the comment as: "if the author can't follow his own guidance, or if the author's own compliance with this guidance is subjective, the guidance may not be given in good faith". The comment is not just saying asshole=wrong. It's saying that Anil Dash may be a hypocrite, and thus unable to propose good social policies. The discussion (to me) seems more moral or social rather than technical. In cases of moral or social judgements, are you sure you completely reject ad-hominem points? It seems to me that a fully Bayesian perspective requires considering ad-hominem attacks; if the source emitting the message is considered untrustworthy, should we discard that information?

makomk 7y ago

It makes all the difference in the world who's making this argument. He relies heavily on the idea that there's some universal category of "assholes" that websites should ban, and that if any website doesn't it's their fault and everyone should pressure them to fall in line. There is no such universal category that everyone agrees on. So what he's really arguing is that people who he considers assholes should be banned by every decent website that wants to receive advertising money, and it's impossible to seperate that argument from his specific moral values and actions.

braythwayt 7y ago
In my opinion, your comment is stronger if you simply state: [This argument] relies heavily on the idea that there's some universal category of "assholes" that websites should ban, and that if any website doesn't it's their fault and everyone should pressure them to fall in line. [However,] there is no such universal category that everyone agrees on. That is simple, direct, and leaves him out of it. And I believe it is better without dragging his character and motives into it.
- makomk 7y ago
  That argument doesn't work. Obviously the assholes won't agree that they should be banned, and you can just argue - as he does in this post - that anyone who doesn't think the supposed assholes should be banned is doing so because they're one of them. Judging the merits of this really does mean thinking about the actual concrete values that he's fighting for.