3 ms·
Perhaps offtopic, but this argumentation style of "So you think XYZ", where XYZ is a complete strawman of what the original post was arguing, is that some new f
by WJW 5y ago
Perhaps offtopic, but this argumentation style of "So you think XYZ", where XYZ is a complete strawman of what the original post was arguing, is that some new fashion? I don't recall ever seeing it even just a year ago, but these days it seems to be in every other thread on HN.
- burnished 5y agoI think its just popping into your view a bit more right now, I'd attribute it to variance more than anything. I personally see more iron-manning of arguments here than facile "So you think XYZ, therefor ABC, checkmate atheists" sort of stuff.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Perhaps offtopic, but this argumentation style of "So you think XYZ", where XYZ is a complete strawman of what the original post was arguing, is that some new fashion? No, there is nothing new about it, either in general or on HN.
- WJW 5y agoPerhaps it's just my imagination then (or I noticed it once and now the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is causing me to see it everywhere).
- soheil 5y agoYou just did what you accused me of doing. I wasn't saying there is never any point in going with the flow. I was just highlighting that there is wisdom in not following the crowd all the time as long as you're both contrarian and right.
- detaro 5y agoI think their accusation was fair: The comment you replied to wasn't arguing for "following the crowd all the time", so "So you want to be lemmings running off the cliff" was attacking something they didn't say.
- soheil 5y agoThat's assuming the worst possible interpretation of what I said.