3 ms·

>If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. >Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable This you? F

by ABCLAW 4y ago

>If your points are worth making should be able to make them without these ad-hominem guessing games. >Your rhetoric is disgusting and regrettable This you? Feels like a bit of 'projection'. The poster you're replying to is making general commentary about class consciousness between the consumer/worker dichotomy. You view yourself as separate from this. Okay great. His points really aren't specific to you, even in statements like "That’s still going to benefit you, in that the people around you are less desperate" Replace <you> with <higher income worker> if that helps engage with the content. I have a feeling, though, if you view his argument (a very basic 'a rising tide lifts all boats' one) as disgusting, you're probably not very interested in trying to understand his point of view in the first place.

throwaway09223 4y ago
No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background. This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum. My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.
- ABCLAW 4y ago
  >No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person The poster you're replying to has provided a synopsis of his argument; it has nothing to do with you. Part of the site's rules are that you should be charitable regarding how people phrase their arguments - just try to understand what he's trying to get at - it's very clear his argument isn't about you as a person. Focusing on this while ignoring the substance of his statements is obviously not going to generate a productive discussion. Trying to use phrasing which allows people to relate to the discussion isn't 'objectively regrettable'. Spinning this into a meta discussion about how the discussion should be framed is a waste of time, so I'll end my contribution here. I hope my notes help untangle the mess.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    Your summary is simply not what took place above. I suggest you re-read the comment thread. Here are some specific links to help you improve your notes: "Ah, well I wrongly assumed you worked ... Congrats, you’re now living off the efforts of others," https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010666 "You feel your interests are different from someone making 30k/year, ... you have much more in common with a warehouse worker ..." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010143 The entire comment thread centers around ad-hominem appeals rather than substantive analysis.
    - ABCLAW 4y ago
      >Your summary is simply not what took place above. You seem dead set on doing anything other than actually engaging with the substance of the post. I didn't say the term 'you' wasn't used. I said the argument has nothing to do with you, or perhaps more accurately, it doesn't rely on any lived experience you've had - you're irrelevant to the point being made. Let's look at a sample argument: My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue. In this argument, we have 1) A premise, 2) Evidence, 3) Rationale, and 4) A conclusion. Let's modify the argument a bit. My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue - and so does everyone including you, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue. The element we've added here, that everyone sees that the sky is blue, is not evidence in support of my conclusion, because my rationale depends on my trust in my eyes, not my trust in everyone else's. Disagreeing by stating "Blind people don't see that the sky is blue, so your evidence is faulty and your conclusion doesn't stand - the sky isn't blue because of blind people" is a poor critique; there ARE weaknesses in the argument, to be sure, but that isn't one of them. To return to this thread, you're attacking elements of the post which aren't the core of the argument; they're attempts to make the argument cogent to you (which obviously failed), but aren't elements upon which the argument relies upon. Anyways, you're clearly not arguing in good faith - there's no attempt to interface with ANY of the content being posted. I'm done here.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Abclaw is entirely correct, btw. I don’t know you, it would be weird for me to make those kinds of guesses about your life and work experience. That shoulda been your first clue that I might have been using an indefinite “you” there. Have a good one!
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    Now you are gaslighting. You spoke specifically about me, and then continued to adjust your rhetoric as you learned more about me. This is gross.

by ABCLAW 4y ago

throwaway09223 4y ago

No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person, rather than commenting on the subject at hand. They've made a series of guesses. They guessed that I work and appealed to my identity rather than form a meaningful argument. After discovering that I don't work, they made a series of other inaccurate guesses about my economic background. This is objectively regrettable. It's fallacious argumentation and in fact is against the rules of this forum. My response is addressing these disgusting tactics. In contrast, I've said nothing about who this person is as an individual -- because it's irrelevant.

ABCLAW 4y ago
>No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person The poster you're replying to has provided a synopsis of his argument; it has nothing to do with you. Part of the site's rules are that you should be charitable regarding how people phrase their arguments - just try to understand what he's trying to get at - it's very clear his argument isn't about you as a person. Focusing on this while ignoring the substance of his statements is obviously not going to generate a productive discussion. Trying to use phrasing which allows people to relate to the discussion isn't 'objectively regrettable'. Spinning this into a meta discussion about how the discussion should be framed is a waste of time, so I'll end my contribution here. I hope my notes help untangle the mess.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  Your summary is simply not what took place above. I suggest you re-read the comment thread. Here are some specific links to help you improve your notes: "Ah, well I wrongly assumed you worked ... Congrats, you’re now living off the efforts of others," https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010666 "You feel your interests are different from someone making 30k/year, ... you have much more in common with a warehouse worker ..." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010143 The entire comment thread centers around ad-hominem appeals rather than substantive analysis.
  - ABCLAW 4y ago
    >Your summary is simply not what took place above. You seem dead set on doing anything other than actually engaging with the substance of the post. I didn't say the term 'you' wasn't used. I said the argument has nothing to do with you, or perhaps more accurately, it doesn't rely on any lived experience you've had - you're irrelevant to the point being made. Let's look at a sample argument: My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue. In this argument, we have 1) A premise, 2) Evidence, 3) Rationale, and 4) A conclusion. Let's modify the argument a bit. My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue - and so does everyone including you, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue. The element we've added here, that everyone sees that the sky is blue, is not evidence in support of my conclusion, because my rationale depends on my trust in my eyes, not my trust in everyone else's. Disagreeing by stating "Blind people don't see that the sky is blue, so your evidence is faulty and your conclusion doesn't stand - the sky isn't blue because of blind people" is a poor critique; there ARE weaknesses in the argument, to be sure, but that isn't one of them. To return to this thread, you're attacking elements of the post which aren't the core of the argument; they're attempts to make the argument cogent to you (which obviously failed), but aren't elements upon which the argument relies upon. Anyways, you're clearly not arguing in good faith - there's no attempt to interface with ANY of the content being posted. I'm done here.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
kennywinker 4y ago
Abclaw is entirely correct, btw. I don’t know you, it would be weird for me to make those kinds of guesses about your life and work experience. That shoulda been your first clue that I might have been using an indefinite “you” there. Have a good one!
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  Now you are gaslighting. You spoke specifically about me, and then continued to adjust your rhetoric as you learned more about me. This is gross.