3 ms·

Not dang, but... There are two paths you can take when you think someone is off-base: 1: ask questions to try and understand where they're coming from. A lot

by mkr-hn 5y ago

Not dang, but... There are two paths you can take when you think someone is off-base: 1: ask questions to try and understand where they're coming from. A lot of times they're entirely on-base and can provide additional context to help understand their view even if you still don't agree. Coming from a different perspective is not the same as lying. 2: attack them, such as by calling them a liar HN's guidelines favor the former. The latter is great TV, but doesn't lead to good discussion.

fallingknife 5y ago
I get that, but there is a line between good faith differences in opinion and a lie. And accusing Netflix of spreading violence is way over that line.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of violence they're referring to doesn't make them a liar. It just means you lacked context. And now you don't. Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Yes I am aware of this tactic. Take a word that is a very severe accusation like "violence" and redefine it to mean something that is so much less severe that 99.9% of people would not consider it remotely the same thing. Then accuse someone using the word, knowing very well that 99.9% of people will take it to mean a very severe accusation, and when called out on it, hide behind the alternate definition that you made up so it's "true." That is not a good faith argument, and I should not be expected to treat it as such. > Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal. And this is an opinion that I disagree with, but it least is stated in a way that isn't deceptive.
    - da39a3ee 5y ago
      > Take a word that is a very severe accusation...redefine it...Then accuse someone..." Exactly, and this is a serious issue. Another example of this tactic is the redefinition of "antisemitism" to mean criticism of Israel. That tactic is cynical and damages efforts to prevent true anti-semitism, but it has been used very effectively by Israel, and by the entire British establishment (from the Conservative party to left-leaning media like the BBC) to damage Jeremy Corbyn's Labour.
  - da39a3ee 5y ago
    Not at all. If someone says "I have two peer-reviewed manuscripts ready for publication: one proving fermat's last theorem in 10 lines and one proving that P=NP in 5 lines" then it is fine to say "You are lying". If the person is using non-standard definitions of "peer-reviewed" or "proving", then that is their decision one consequence of which is that they should expect to be called a liar. In any case "they do not want me to live" is clearly a lie -- or are you going to introduce me to some new bending of language under which "they do not want me to live" does not mean "they want me to die"? Perhaps it means "they do not want me to live in the way that I want to live"? If so, as I said above, a risk of using language in such an extremely non-standard fashion is clearly that people will entirely reasonably mistake your statements for lying. Any attempt you make to tell me to do more research into what people mean by their words is just devaluing language and damaging communication: there has to be some rough consensus on semantics! That's what a language is!
    - pvg 5y ago
      That's very nearly the opposite of how HN works - it's spelled out in the guidelines and you can find dozens of moderator comments about it. There isn't really an intricate talmudic debate to be had about it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

by mkr-hn 5y ago

fallingknife 5y ago

I get that, but there is a line between good faith differences in opinion and a lie. And accusing Netflix of spreading violence is way over that line.

mkr-hn 5y ago
Not if you understand what they mean by violence. I assume they mean the kind of violence that goes with stochastic terrorism. Dave Chapelle doesn't have to intend for his words to cause harm to cause harm. Netflix doesn't have to intend it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attacks You don't have to agree that stochastic terrorism is real, but calling someone a liar because you don't understand the model of violence they're referring to doesn't make them a liar. It just means you lacked context. And now you don't. Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Yes I am aware of this tactic. Take a word that is a very severe accusation like "violence" and redefine it to mean something that is so much less severe that 99.9% of people would not consider it remotely the same thing. Then accuse someone using the word, knowing very well that 99.9% of people will take it to mean a very severe accusation, and when called out on it, hide behind the alternate definition that you made up so it's "true." That is not a good faith argument, and I should not be expected to treat it as such. > Every dude who murders a trans woman bases his fear and rage on the exact same ignorance Netflix spreads through the chain of stand-up shows I did watch that meant I didn't need to bother with this one to know the deal. And this is an opinion that I disagree with, but it least is stated in a way that isn't deceptive.
  - da39a3ee 5y ago
    > Take a word that is a very severe accusation...redefine it...Then accuse someone..." Exactly, and this is a serious issue. Another example of this tactic is the redefinition of "antisemitism" to mean criticism of Israel. That tactic is cynical and damages efforts to prevent true anti-semitism, but it has been used very effectively by Israel, and by the entire British establishment (from the Conservative party to left-leaning media like the BBC) to damage Jeremy Corbyn's Labour.
- da39a3ee 5y ago
  Not at all. If someone says "I have two peer-reviewed manuscripts ready for publication: one proving fermat's last theorem in 10 lines and one proving that P=NP in 5 lines" then it is fine to say "You are lying". If the person is using non-standard definitions of "peer-reviewed" or "proving", then that is their decision one consequence of which is that they should expect to be called a liar. In any case "they do not want me to live" is clearly a lie -- or are you going to introduce me to some new bending of language under which "they do not want me to live" does not mean "they want me to die"? Perhaps it means "they do not want me to live in the way that I want to live"? If so, as I said above, a risk of using language in such an extremely non-standard fashion is clearly that people will entirely reasonably mistake your statements for lying. Any attempt you make to tell me to do more research into what people mean by their words is just devaluing language and damaging communication: there has to be some rough consensus on semantics! That's what a language is!
  - pvg 5y ago
    That's very nearly the opposite of how HN works - it's spelled out in the guidelines and you can find dozens of moderator comments about it. There isn't really an intricate talmudic debate to be had about it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]