3 ms·

Well you're kind of exactly demonstrating my argument. Criticism of someone's idea or theory is not harassment of that person. It's by definition not ad-hominem

Pfhreak 6y ago
It's not so simple, unfortunately. Yes, in an ideal world I would agree with you -- criticism, when deployed reasonably, is not harassment. But let's look at some concrete ways this could break down. I'm going to use HN as an analogy, but swap in whitepapers, emails, etc. Example 1: If I specifically open your comment history, and raise critique against only your comments, methodically going through them and finding specific things to be critical of, is that harassment? I don't do this to anyone else, just you. Is it reasonable to feel uncomfortable that someone is laser focused on critiquing only your work? Example 2: It is much easier to offer critique than to address critique -- if I intentionally respond to your comments/papers with loads of hard to answer but relatively meaningless questions, thereby slowing you down, is that harassment? An author's time is a limited resource, and if I'm deliberately trying to cause them to spend it dealing with me, is that harassment? In debate, this is called the Gish Gallop and it's widely effective. Example 3: If I respond to your comments with disingenuous questions or criticisms that I know will prompt an emotional response in you in an effort to get you to respond in a frustrated way, is that harassment? Humans are not emotionless automata, and even when we try to maintain barriers between ourselves and our ideas, a sufficiently needling criticism can eventually get under someone's skin. Example 4: What if there's a significant power imbalance? Let's say you are a tech celebrity and you go onto twitter and post, "Look at this person's HN post, can you believe this? Hey, everyone, please go write one critical reply to their post." You are brigading someone, and sure, a lot of the questions might be critical, but the volume and intent might not be critical. Is that harassment? Like many things in engineering, scale and intent matters. There's a lot of malicious behavior that can be dressed up as "I'm just asking questions". These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and they can make people reasonably feel pretty strong emotions like fear, anxiety, etc. Perhaps, in a perfect world, we'd be able to use axioms and construct arguments and no one would malaiciously engage with the scientific process, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where humans are involved and it's messy and emotional and we try to do the right things, but there are people who, for whatever reason, think it is fun or gain some benefit from stalling those whose ideologies differ.
- omgwtfbbq 6y ago
  Most of your examples are irrelevant to the discussion which is about Science and Academia but largely you are describing patterns of stalking behavior which tangentially include criticism. The point I was making was that people in the CRT circle in particular are arguing that by definition, criticism of their ideas or theories is bullying/harassment/etc. Which is absurd.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Every one of those examples applies to academia, I chose comments but I could easily replace it with academic criticism. > The point I was making was that people in the CRT circle in particular are arguing that by definition, criticism of their ideas or theories is bullying/harassment/etc. Can you demonstrate this is a widely held belief somehow? It reads like a bias you might hold but can't back up with data?

Pfhreak 6y ago

It's not so simple, unfortunately. Yes, in an ideal world I would agree with you -- criticism, when deployed reasonably, is not harassment. But let's look at some concrete ways this could break down. I'm going to use HN as an analogy, but swap in whitepapers, emails, etc. Example 1: If I specifically open your comment history, and raise critique against only your comments, methodically going through them and finding specific things to be critical of, is that harassment? I don't do this to anyone else, just you. Is it reasonable to feel uncomfortable that someone is laser focused on critiquing only your work? Example 2: It is much easier to offer critique than to address critique -- if I intentionally respond to your comments/papers with loads of hard to answer but relatively meaningless questions, thereby slowing you down, is that harassment? An author's time is a limited resource, and if I'm deliberately trying to cause them to spend it dealing with me, is that harassment? In debate, this is called the Gish Gallop and it's widely effective. Example 3: If I respond to your comments with disingenuous questions or criticisms that I know will prompt an emotional response in you in an effort to get you to respond in a frustrated way, is that harassment? Humans are not emotionless automata, and even when we try to maintain barriers between ourselves and our ideas, a sufficiently needling criticism can eventually get under someone's skin. Example 4: What if there's a significant power imbalance? Let's say you are a tech celebrity and you go onto twitter and post, "Look at this person's HN post, can you believe this? Hey, everyone, please go write one critical reply to their post." You are brigading someone, and sure, a lot of the questions might be critical, but the volume and intent might not be critical. Is that harassment? Like many things in engineering, scale and intent matters. There's a lot of malicious behavior that can be dressed up as "I'm just asking questions". These behaviors can be intentional or unintentional and they can make people reasonably feel pretty strong emotions like fear, anxiety, etc. Perhaps, in a perfect world, we'd be able to use axioms and construct arguments and no one would malaiciously engage with the scientific process, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where humans are involved and it's messy and emotional and we try to do the right things, but there are people who, for whatever reason, think it is fun or gain some benefit from stalling those whose ideologies differ.

omgwtfbbq 6y ago
Most of your examples are irrelevant to the discussion which is about Science and Academia but largely you are describing patterns of stalking behavior which tangentially include criticism. The point I was making was that people in the CRT circle in particular are arguing that by definition, criticism of their ideas or theories is bullying/harassment/etc. Which is absurd.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Every one of those examples applies to academia, I chose comments but I could easily replace it with academic criticism. > The point I was making was that people in the CRT circle in particular are arguing that by definition, criticism of their ideas or theories is bullying/harassment/etc. Can you demonstrate this is a widely held belief somehow? It reads like a bias you might hold but can't back up with data?