4 ms·

Please elaborate where there was ever a personal attack. Poster is willing debating the finer points of the topic. Debate is routinely attacking ideas; that is

Please elaborate where there was ever a personal attack. Poster is willing debating the finer points of the topic. Debate is routinely attacking ideas; that is normal. Pointing out the trend of routine holes, inconsistencies, selectively addressing facts, glossing over arguments/facts, handwaving in the posters comments that demonstrate bias, blindspots, misrepresentation, poor judgement, dishonesty, ignorance, bigotry, sexism, racism, hate, nationalistic hate, or routinely lacking insight, experience, and informedness is not a personal attack. Those are features of settling debates instead of perpetuating misinformation, small mindedness, and uninformed/poor ideas. Please reflect on your post with the personal swipe I am to edit out, because it is not clear to me a personal swipe was made.

dang 7y ago
Your first paragraph changed the topic into psychologizing the other commenter in a patronizing way. Please don't do that on HN.
- unimployed 7y ago
  I feel like that is a trap criticism since the poster became suddenly offended by my highly civil, PC, and blunted expression (disingenuousness) that their ideas and treatment of the data/facts was being criticized (to the point of misrepresenting/mischaracterizing the data or being dishonest). That is not changing the topic at all, it is redirecting their evaluative skills to the facts/data they chose to not respond to and hand-wave away, and puts pressure on their reputation to explain their motives for not choosing to respond or evaluate the facts/data. That is entirely substantive in the topic debate. Further, the poster asked for a straightforward no-nonsense opinion and clarification, which I provided them in an adult fashion without kid gloves at their own request. I would expect the same adult, civil-but-no-nonsense treatment in an adult setting if I started choosing to get offended because someone criticized/called out the way I choose to view the world/facts/data with rose coloured glasses. Respectfully this is the internet and difficult topics should not be so difficult to discuss because someone might take an adult but civil and valid criticism of repeated questionable opinions that contradict data/facts presented to them personally. Hacker news is an adult site that may include divisive and real world type content where there will be disagreement to carry out informed but adult, real world discussions that spread/communicate valuable information and discovery and further everyone’s understanding of the world. If I call out someone for being a hypocrite or espousing and spreading hypocritical views/ideas, does that warrant a warning to not to call them a hypocrite? I cannot shield a person from civil but real world criticism they choose to find offensive if their offense is derived from a criticism to their questionable behavior and questionable ways they choose to carry out discussion here. TLDR: “I believe you may be a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.” “Did you just call me a hypocrite?” “Yes I did. That or possibly a liar.” “You can’t tell someone they are a hypocrite or a liar, those terms carry an air of superiority and trigger feelings of inferiority and are patronizing/condescending even if they ask you to clarify and even if they are a behaving as a hypocrite or a liar. https://news.ycombinator.com/thislinkhasnorelevantcontentpertainingtothecomplaint.html” https://news.ycombinator.com/thislinkhasnorelevantcontentper... scratches head
  - dang 7y ago
    Calling someone disingenuous isn't "highly civil, PC, and blunted. It's a fancy way of calling them a liar, and already crosses into personal attack. Presumably that's why DiogenesKynikos responded the way they did, and I wouldn't say it was an overreaction—they asked a question neutrally.
    - unimployed 7y ago
      The question was not posed naturally. They asked in an offended fashion if I was accusing them of dishonesty (well yes, selectively responding to and ignoring presented facts says “those are inconvenient truths I’d rather avoid discussing because it hurts my preferred position/views”). No. “Disingenuous” is rhetoric used in the context of scientific debates and responses to other studies, without controversy. Meaning the claims are not valid, not true, not representative, not correct, wrong, mischaracterizing, not genuine. It also means dishonest in science too. FYI scientists don't use offense to a commonly used term to deflect an opposing view and facts/data. Scientists may partake in highly spirited and civil debates and may call out bias, hypocrisy, lies, and any number of things that plausibly explain opposing incongruent (claims incompatible with facts/data) positions including: idealism, politics, institutionalism, naivety, wishful thinking and so on. This is the great thing about science and debate. Don’t take arguments personally, it’s the facts that matter. Your biggest critic may be your best friend and they are most effective at showing you where you need to re-evaluate your views/position or improve your self-evaluation and make yourself a better scientist or individual.
      - dang 7y ago
        If you have links to usages of 'disingenuous' where it's clear that no dishonesty or bad faith is insinuated, I'd be curious to see them.
        unimployed 7y ago
        I think you might be jumping to conclusions. The usage of disingenuous in debates also means dishonest (see my above comment). What I communicated was that disingenuous usage in a debate is without controversy. No one reacts by flagging/reporting a study or paper for moderation because I said your position does not honestly represent facts or data. What happens instead is positions are restated in a way that better speaks to and directly addresses the facts or data to better prove their point, or they can’t directly address those facts and the debate more or less ends there quite efficiently. Does that make sense? A google search result shows: “The Economics of the Financial Crisis: Lessons and New Threats Marco Annunziata · 2011 · Business & Economics Yet this line of argument is in many ways simplistic, misleading and disingenuous. Economics is an imperfect science, and some of its weaknesses have been shown in an unflatteringly harsh ...” “On the Economics of Say and Keynes' Interpretation of Say's Law - Jstor by PO Jonsson · 1995 · Cited by 37 · Related articles portrayal of how Ricardian economics differed from his own General Theory was best disingenuous and at worst fraudulent. Moreover, because ...” “A Synthesis of Law and Economics - SMU Scholar by J Cirace · 2016 · Cited by 20 · Related articles and transfers, economists often make disingenuous statements to the effect that a " trade-off" between distribution and efficiency exists. 38 Such ...” “Institutional Economics: Veblen, Commons, and Mitchell ... Joseph Dorfman · 1963 · Economics The roots of his institutional economics were planted in the disorderly ... In a homespun and often disingenuous way, he strove with dogged ...” “A/moral Economics: Classical Political Economy and Cultural ... Claudia C. Klaver · 2003 · Business & Economics Economics ... "laws of the inductive philosophy" to the "abstract questions of political economy" is disingenuous given the long history of debate ...” I had no trouble finding these somewhat general but critical examples; the rhetoric is fairly common. With some better targeted google-fu I can probably find some great examples in heated scientific debates like Einstein vs Bohr and other great controversial debates.

dang 7y ago

Your first paragraph changed the topic into psychologizing the other commenter in a patronizing way. Please don't do that on HN.

unimployed 7y ago
I feel like that is a trap criticism since the poster became suddenly offended by my highly civil, PC, and blunted expression (disingenuousness) that their ideas and treatment of the data/facts was being criticized (to the point of misrepresenting/mischaracterizing the data or being dishonest). That is not changing the topic at all, it is redirecting their evaluative skills to the facts/data they chose to not respond to and hand-wave away, and puts pressure on their reputation to explain their motives for not choosing to respond or evaluate the facts/data. That is entirely substantive in the topic debate. Further, the poster asked for a straightforward no-nonsense opinion and clarification, which I provided them in an adult fashion without kid gloves at their own request. I would expect the same adult, civil-but-no-nonsense treatment in an adult setting if I started choosing to get offended because someone criticized/called out the way I choose to view the world/facts/data with rose coloured glasses. Respectfully this is the internet and difficult topics should not be so difficult to discuss because someone might take an adult but civil and valid criticism of repeated questionable opinions that contradict data/facts presented to them personally. Hacker news is an adult site that may include divisive and real world type content where there will be disagreement to carry out informed but adult, real world discussions that spread/communicate valuable information and discovery and further everyone’s understanding of the world. If I call out someone for being a hypocrite or espousing and spreading hypocritical views/ideas, does that warrant a warning to not to call them a hypocrite? I cannot shield a person from civil but real world criticism they choose to find offensive if their offense is derived from a criticism to their questionable behavior and questionable ways they choose to carry out discussion here. TLDR: “I believe you may be a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.” “Did you just call me a hypocrite?” “Yes I did. That or possibly a liar.” “You can’t tell someone they are a hypocrite or a liar, those terms carry an air of superiority and trigger feelings of inferiority and are patronizing/condescending even if they ask you to clarify and even if they are a behaving as a hypocrite or a liar. https://news.ycombinator.com/thislinkhasnorelevantcontentpertainingtothecomplaint.html” https://news.ycombinator.com/thislinkhasnorelevantcontentper... scratches head
- dang 7y ago
  Calling someone disingenuous isn't "highly civil, PC, and blunted. It's a fancy way of calling them a liar, and already crosses into personal attack. Presumably that's why DiogenesKynikos responded the way they did, and I wouldn't say it was an overreaction—they asked a question neutrally.
  - unimployed 7y ago
    The question was not posed naturally. They asked in an offended fashion if I was accusing them of dishonesty (well yes, selectively responding to and ignoring presented facts says “those are inconvenient truths I’d rather avoid discussing because it hurts my preferred position/views”). No. “Disingenuous” is rhetoric used in the context of scientific debates and responses to other studies, without controversy. Meaning the claims are not valid, not true, not representative, not correct, wrong, mischaracterizing, not genuine. It also means dishonest in science too. FYI scientists don't use offense to a commonly used term to deflect an opposing view and facts/data. Scientists may partake in highly spirited and civil debates and may call out bias, hypocrisy, lies, and any number of things that plausibly explain opposing incongruent (claims incompatible with facts/data) positions including: idealism, politics, institutionalism, naivety, wishful thinking and so on. This is the great thing about science and debate. Don’t take arguments personally, it’s the facts that matter. Your biggest critic may be your best friend and they are most effective at showing you where you need to re-evaluate your views/position or improve your self-evaluation and make yourself a better scientist or individual.
    - dang 7y ago
      If you have links to usages of 'disingenuous' where it's clear that no dishonesty or bad faith is insinuated, I'd be curious to see them.
      - unimployed 7y ago
        I think you might be jumping to conclusions. The usage of disingenuous in debates also means dishonest (see my above comment). What I communicated was that disingenuous usage in a debate is without controversy. No one reacts by flagging/reporting a study or paper for moderation because I said your position does not honestly represent facts or data. What happens instead is positions are restated in a way that better speaks to and directly addresses the facts or data to better prove their point, or they can’t directly address those facts and the debate more or less ends there quite efficiently. Does that make sense? A google search result shows: “The Economics of the Financial Crisis: Lessons and New Threats Marco Annunziata · 2011 · Business & Economics Yet this line of argument is in many ways simplistic, misleading and disingenuous. Economics is an imperfect science, and some of its weaknesses have been shown in an unflatteringly harsh ...” “On the Economics of Say and Keynes' Interpretation of Say's Law - Jstor by PO Jonsson · 1995 · Cited by 37 · Related articles portrayal of how Ricardian economics differed from his own General Theory was best disingenuous and at worst fraudulent. Moreover, because ...” “A Synthesis of Law and Economics - SMU Scholar by J Cirace · 2016 · Cited by 20 · Related articles and transfers, economists often make disingenuous statements to the effect that a " trade-off" between distribution and efficiency exists. 38 Such ...” “Institutional Economics: Veblen, Commons, and Mitchell ... Joseph Dorfman · 1963 · Economics The roots of his institutional economics were planted in the disorderly ... In a homespun and often disingenuous way, he strove with dogged ...” “A/moral Economics: Classical Political Economy and Cultural ... Claudia C. Klaver · 2003 · Business & Economics Economics ... "laws of the inductive philosophy" to the "abstract questions of political economy" is disingenuous given the long history of debate ...” I had no trouble finding these somewhat general but critical examples; the rhetoric is fairly common. With some better targeted google-fu I can probably find some great examples in heated scientific debates like Einstein vs Bohr and other great controversial debates.