3 ms·

I see "Sorry but this is utter nonsense" as ad hominem, a put down, with overtones of a dismissive "wiser" person dismissing out of hand what is said. That effe

I see "Sorry but this is utter nonsense" as ad hominem, a put down, with overtones of a dismissive "wiser" person dismissing out of hand what is said. That effect of this psychological slight outweighs the fact that they did back up their argument afterwards and didn't leave it as just an unsubstantial comment. Kind of like a microagression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression, I think... Human language and idioms are hard to create rulesets for. Probably "name-calling" is too specific, but "microagression" may not be understood by all. However it is sad if we need to lawyer the guidelines.

twayt 5y ago
No calling an argument "utter nonsense" doesn't imply anything about the person making the argument. You may think it is ad hominem but technically it simply isn't since it isn't directed to a person but rather their argument. However, in this context, calling their argument "utter nonsense" is utterly unnecessary and only serves to up the ante.
- dang 5y ago
  It isn't just about being personal (though that's particularly bad). It's about not tossing in pejoratives and putdowns. The HN guidelines are clear about this: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." We don't want name-calling (in this sense) because it leads to dumber, nastier internet discussion. It's also particularly easy to avoid. If you take out its first sentence, the GP comment loses nothing but hostility and becomes a far better HN contribution. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - twayt 5y ago
    I think you misunderstood my comment. I agree with the spirit of the rule and hold a similar view to what you explained. I was pointing out to the commenter that while it was not technically as hominem, it is still not acceptable and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
    - dang 5y ago
      Oops, I think I might have replied to the wrong comment. Sorry about that!
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  Good point (I might be replying to edited version?)
  - twayt 5y ago
    There is no edited version

twayt 5y ago

No calling an argument "utter nonsense" doesn't imply anything about the person making the argument. You may think it is ad hominem but technically it simply isn't since it isn't directed to a person but rather their argument. However, in this context, calling their argument "utter nonsense" is utterly unnecessary and only serves to up the ante.

dang 5y ago
It isn't just about being personal (though that's particularly bad). It's about not tossing in pejoratives and putdowns. The HN guidelines are clear about this: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." We don't want name-calling (in this sense) because it leads to dumber, nastier internet discussion. It's also particularly easy to avoid. If you take out its first sentence, the GP comment loses nothing but hostility and becomes a far better HN contribution. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- twayt 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment. I agree with the spirit of the rule and hold a similar view to what you explained. I was pointing out to the commenter that while it was not technically as hominem, it is still not acceptable and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
  - dang 5y ago
    Oops, I think I might have replied to the wrong comment. Sorry about that!
quickthrower2 5y ago
Good point (I might be replying to edited version?)
- twayt 5y ago
  There is no edited version