4 ms·

You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody said that taking a particular side of a debate makes you dumb. This isn't about what side you take, it's about how you

by csallen 15y ago

You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody said that taking a particular side of a debate makes you dumb. This isn't about what side you take, it's about how you choose to debate. HN used to be a place that cared deeply about conversing in a civil, responsible, and educational manner. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed in the parent comment, the fact is that it doesn't meet those standards. Even if the logic wasn't childish ("fuck X by association", really?), the comment does little to substantiate its opinions, or to educate those who aren't aware of the issue. In other words, it's a populist comment expressly made to pander to those who are already in agreement. Upvoting said comment means either (a) you haven't even considered the importance of having a quality discussion, (b) you've considered it but in this case you don't care, or (c) you actually think it's a high quality comment. The fact that the comment is sitting pretty at the top of the page means that people have, en masse, fallen into one of these categories. Like it or not, A and C are simply dumber than the HN of old, and B is more confrontational.

abbasmehdi 15y ago
"Even if the logic wasn't childish ("fuck X by association", really?)" <-- I am failing to grasp how this logic is childish? Have thousands of corporations not apologized and often paid money for partnering with organizations with dubious pasts? An extreme case example to highlight my point: do you think Hugo Boss apologizing for being a partner of the Nazi party in WW2 Germany was just a PR move? My point is, aiding x in its mission makes you an accomplice. You can argue that x is not bad or as bad is it is being made out to be, but being a partner makes you exactly that, a partner.
- csallen 15y ago
  > My point is, aiding x in its mission makes you an accomplice. You can argue that x is not bad or as bad is it is being made out to be, but being a partner makes you exactly that, a partner. This is an overly-idealistic way to look at a complex world, and taking such a stance would surely make you a hypocrite. As I asked another commenter: Do you not use a bank? Pay taxes to a government? Buy food, shelter, and other products? Well then, you've undoubtedly patronized at least a few entities who have committed horrible atrocities. So, by your own logic, fuck you.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - abbasmehdi 15y ago
    First off, I never swore, I was referring to the logic part, so please don't swear at me (not cool). Secondly, you're calling me overly idealistic and simple minded, the world a complex place, yet make your case by comparing an individual citizen bound by legal obligations they can't escape without jail time or leaving the country to a corporate partnership made out of free will? Think of comparing the two then think about the names you called me. I'll let you be the judge.
    - csallen 15y ago
      > First off, I never swore, I was referring to the logic part, so please don't swear at me (not cool). Whether you swore or not, you're defending the comment "fuck Cloudant by association". Don't you think it's hypocritical to back up that type of language when it's directed at others, but criticize it when it's directed at you? You can't have it both ways. Either it's an immature way to conduct a discussion or it's not. > yet make your case by comparing an individual citizen bound by legal obligations they can't escape without jail time or leaving the country to a corporate partnership made out of free will? Think of comparing the two then think about the names you called me. I'll let you be the judge. I gave you a short list of offenses you've committed, and you've only attempted to defend yourself against one of them (paying income taxes). Furthermore, your defense is pretty poor: "leaving the country" would be inconvenient. And you don't think it would be inconvenient for companies to refuse to do business with others who have at some point committed an ethics violation? I'm sorry but your entire position is full of double standards that you can't justify. When you bend over backwards and make the countless sacrifices necessary to live your life without supporting questionable organizations, then you can come back and criticize others for not doing the same.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
run4yourlives 15y ago
You're essentially arguing that the expression of passion/emotion via a comment is below the standards of HN. It's an interesting viewpoint, but one I don't completely support. The problem with your stance is that preventing the expression of emotion is often a cover for elitism. Rather than being a strawman, this is exactly what Paul is doing in his comment. i.e. "I am above being emotionally attached to this argument because it isn't very important. If you think it's important, you simply aren't at my level." All of us - being that we are all subject to emotion - will allow emotional responses to topics that we feel matter. What it all boils down to is a disagreement on what level of importance you place on a topic. This of course has nothing to do with intelligence at all in most cases. The continued association of intelligence to apathy is a bit of a fallacy, to be honest.
- temphn 15y ago
  > The problem with your stance is that preventing the expression of emotion is often a cover for elitism. Elitism is a good thing. HN is an elitist forum. Youtube is a forum for the mob. There is a reason that Idiocracy portrayed stupid people as those who mindlessly cursed and raved in every sentence. Profanity has its place, but especially in comment threads it's a limbic reaction rather than an intellectual one. "F* you" adds no value, can be said by anyone, and can be heard anywhere. The more "f* you", the fewer posts by startup founders, technologists, and people who know what they are doing. In other words, the fewer posts by elites.

by csallen 15y ago

abbasmehdi 15y ago

"Even if the logic wasn't childish ("fuck X by association", really?)" <-- I am failing to grasp how this logic is childish? Have thousands of corporations not apologized and often paid money for partnering with organizations with dubious pasts? An extreme case example to highlight my point: do you think Hugo Boss apologizing for being a partner of the Nazi party in WW2 Germany was just a PR move? My point is, aiding x in its mission makes you an accomplice. You can argue that x is not bad or as bad is it is being made out to be, but being a partner makes you exactly that, a partner.

csallen 15y ago
> My point is, aiding x in its mission makes you an accomplice. You can argue that x is not bad or as bad is it is being made out to be, but being a partner makes you exactly that, a partner. This is an overly-idealistic way to look at a complex world, and taking such a stance would surely make you a hypocrite. As I asked another commenter: Do you not use a bank? Pay taxes to a government? Buy food, shelter, and other products? Well then, you've undoubtedly patronized at least a few entities who have committed horrible atrocities. So, by your own logic, fuck you.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- abbasmehdi 15y ago
  First off, I never swore, I was referring to the logic part, so please don't swear at me (not cool). Secondly, you're calling me overly idealistic and simple minded, the world a complex place, yet make your case by comparing an individual citizen bound by legal obligations they can't escape without jail time or leaving the country to a corporate partnership made out of free will? Think of comparing the two then think about the names you called me. I'll let you be the judge.
  - csallen 15y ago
    > First off, I never swore, I was referring to the logic part, so please don't swear at me (not cool). Whether you swore or not, you're defending the comment "fuck Cloudant by association". Don't you think it's hypocritical to back up that type of language when it's directed at others, but criticize it when it's directed at you? You can't have it both ways. Either it's an immature way to conduct a discussion or it's not. > yet make your case by comparing an individual citizen bound by legal obligations they can't escape without jail time or leaving the country to a corporate partnership made out of free will? Think of comparing the two then think about the names you called me. I'll let you be the judge. I gave you a short list of offenses you've committed, and you've only attempted to defend yourself against one of them (paying income taxes). Furthermore, your defense is pretty poor: "leaving the country" would be inconvenient. And you don't think it would be inconvenient for companies to refuse to do business with others who have at some point committed an ethics violation? I'm sorry but your entire position is full of double standards that you can't justify. When you bend over backwards and make the countless sacrifices necessary to live your life without supporting questionable organizations, then you can come back and criticize others for not doing the same.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]

run4yourlives 15y ago

You're essentially arguing that the expression of passion/emotion via a comment is below the standards of HN. It's an interesting viewpoint, but one I don't completely support. The problem with your stance is that preventing the expression of emotion is often a cover for elitism. Rather than being a strawman, this is exactly what Paul is doing in his comment. i.e. "I am above being emotionally attached to this argument because it isn't very important. If you think it's important, you simply aren't at my level." All of us - being that we are all subject to emotion - will allow emotional responses to topics that we feel matter. What it all boils down to is a disagreement on what level of importance you place on a topic. This of course has nothing to do with intelligence at all in most cases. The continued association of intelligence to apathy is a bit of a fallacy, to be honest.

temphn 15y ago
> The problem with your stance is that preventing the expression of emotion is often a cover for elitism. Elitism is a good thing. HN is an elitist forum. Youtube is a forum for the mob. There is a reason that Idiocracy portrayed stupid people as those who mindlessly cursed and raved in every sentence. Profanity has its place, but especially in comment threads it's a limbic reaction rather than an intellectual one. "F* you" adds no value, can be said by anyone, and can be heard anywhere. The more "f* you", the fewer posts by startup founders, technologists, and people who know what they are doing. In other words, the fewer posts by elites.