5 ms·

So, this is a different argument from the one you were making before. You first post is about ingestion of media. This one is about production. This is a very

by enkid 6y ago

So, this is a different argument from the one you were making before. You first post is about ingestion of media. This one is about production. This is a very different claim, but still requires evidence beyond stating that there is some. Can you help me out and provide some?

forgingahead 6y ago
I'm not sure if you're asking in good-faith, your comment history shows a history of "Sea-lioning" (a term I just learned myself today): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning From the original web-comic: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
- tptacek 6y ago
  The moderators of this site specifically ask you not to employ this tactic of trying to summarize people's comment history as a rhetorical weapon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130908
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    That's usually what happens when someone considers reputation above some fact.
- enkid 6y ago
  This is really messed up. I have doubts about what other people say, but I try to reserve judgement about those things. When them make claims that I haven't seen any evidence for, I ask for their evidence so I can understand where they are coming from, but make my own assessment about the truth. I am not badgering anyone, but I refuse to let people make claims without evidence, if it is 1.) it's a statement of fact, not opinion, and 2.) there is no consensus about it's truth from what I have seen or it goes against that consensus. If you don't like that, don't read my comments.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I refuse to let people make claims without evidence Victims of attempts to suppress their voices via cancel culture, deplatforming or other marginalisation: JK Rowling (trans opinions wrong) Jordan Peterson (calls out leftist overreach so obviously far right) Douglas Murray (far right for similar reasons apparently) Jodie Comer (conservative boyfriend) James Damore (career destroyed for taking free speech seriously) Andy Ngo (violently attacked for reporting on leftist violence) Various academics (jobs lost for supporting conservative causes or thought of being conservative) This is just off the top of my head, and if you have missed these and the many other disturbing cases I have to ask: Where on earth have you been?
  - kls 6y ago
    Funny I have a new red flag word, it used to be on the internet when you saw the first reference to someone being a Nazi you knew to start taking a critical look at what the accuser was saying but we have invented so many of them now to try to create one word labels to dismiss other peoples positions, stuff like gaslighting, dog whistling now I have to look for sea lioning. What these all have in common is they try to project negative light on the person they are used against and make the reader view their information negatively. It's absurd to me, that asking for some reference and citation to the subject at hand, now has a label word to dismiss it, out of hand. It's been a while since I have been in higher education, but IIRC citation and references where pretty much the basis of research and publication of ideas.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Literally any term describing a process argument that intends to end a debate will eventually be abused, because message board nerds† love power-ups; in fact, a good many of them, upon learning a new mic-drop argument ("gaslighting!", "begging the question!", "ad hominem!", "tu quoque!") will hide up in the corners waiting for someone to unwittingly reveal a susceptible argument, so they can deploy their new toy on them, like the person who got the super laser-gun thingy in Quake for the first time. But that only gets you part of the way to understanding. These arguments are & always will be abused. But: just because something is regularly abused doesn't mean there's no validity to it. And of course, pointing out that these arguments are abused is itself a kind of Quake laser cannon argument. Ultimately, you just have to decide yourself based on context cues whether an argument is valid. † Obviously, I am one myself
mellosouls 6y ago
I don't know which post about media ingestion you are referring to, you possibly have me confused with another poster or you'll need to link to it for clarification. As for providing some evidence of cancel culture and deplatforming, somebody would have to have been living on Mars (or have blinkers) to have missed the odious practices (as evidenced in the OP!) that the terms were invented for, and I'm not sure me spending my time googling and linking examples is going to help in that case.

by enkid 6y ago

forgingahead 6y ago

I'm not sure if you're asking in good-faith, your comment history shows a history of "Sea-lioning" (a term I just learned myself today): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning From the original web-comic: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/

tptacek 6y ago
The moderators of this site specifically ask you not to employ this tactic of trying to summarize people's comment history as a rhetorical weapon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130908
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  That's usually what happens when someone considers reputation above some fact.
enkid 6y ago
This is really messed up. I have doubts about what other people say, but I try to reserve judgement about those things. When them make claims that I haven't seen any evidence for, I ask for their evidence so I can understand where they are coming from, but make my own assessment about the truth. I am not badgering anyone, but I refuse to let people make claims without evidence, if it is 1.) it's a statement of fact, not opinion, and 2.) there is no consensus about it's truth from what I have seen or it goes against that consensus. If you don't like that, don't read my comments.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  I refuse to let people make claims without evidence Victims of attempts to suppress their voices via cancel culture, deplatforming or other marginalisation: JK Rowling (trans opinions wrong) Jordan Peterson (calls out leftist overreach so obviously far right) Douglas Murray (far right for similar reasons apparently) Jodie Comer (conservative boyfriend) James Damore (career destroyed for taking free speech seriously) Andy Ngo (violently attacked for reporting on leftist violence) Various academics (jobs lost for supporting conservative causes or thought of being conservative) This is just off the top of my head, and if you have missed these and the many other disturbing cases I have to ask: Where on earth have you been?
- kls 6y ago
  Funny I have a new red flag word, it used to be on the internet when you saw the first reference to someone being a Nazi you knew to start taking a critical look at what the accuser was saying but we have invented so many of them now to try to create one word labels to dismiss other peoples positions, stuff like gaslighting, dog whistling now I have to look for sea lioning. What these all have in common is they try to project negative light on the person they are used against and make the reader view their information negatively. It's absurd to me, that asking for some reference and citation to the subject at hand, now has a label word to dismiss it, out of hand. It's been a while since I have been in higher education, but IIRC citation and references where pretty much the basis of research and publication of ideas.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Literally any term describing a process argument that intends to end a debate will eventually be abused, because message board nerds† love power-ups; in fact, a good many of them, upon learning a new mic-drop argument ("gaslighting!", "begging the question!", "ad hominem!", "tu quoque!") will hide up in the corners waiting for someone to unwittingly reveal a susceptible argument, so they can deploy their new toy on them, like the person who got the super laser-gun thingy in Quake for the first time. But that only gets you part of the way to understanding. These arguments are & always will be abused. But: just because something is regularly abused doesn't mean there's no validity to it. And of course, pointing out that these arguments are abused is itself a kind of Quake laser cannon argument. Ultimately, you just have to decide yourself based on context cues whether an argument is valid. † Obviously, I am one myself

mellosouls 6y ago

I don't know which post about media ingestion you are referring to, you possibly have me confused with another poster or you'll need to link to it for clarification. As for providing some evidence of cancel culture and deplatforming, somebody would have to have been living on Mars (or have blinkers) to have missed the odious practices (as evidenced in the OP!) that the terms were invented for, and I'm not sure me spending my time googling and linking examples is going to help in that case.