5 ms·

Well, I can't really edit that anymore as it's been too long. And I simply used a bit of colourful language to describe relevant points to a discussion of Mr He

Well, I can't really edit that anymore as it's been too long. And I simply used a bit of colourful language to describe relevant points to a discussion of Mr Hersh's trustworthiness: he is senile and old. Now, if you think 'The man is 85, he gets basic facts wrong in his articles, he takes a single anonymous source's word as gospel, and either won't do fact checking or fails to do so competently. He is senile and old.' is acceptable, I will stick to such less colourful language in the future.

pvg 4y ago
The whole point is that namecalling/internet diagnosis is not acceptable. You can't 'it's just colourful language' your way out of that.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  As I've said elsewhere, the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant to the matter as the discussion was already revolving around whether or not he's a trustworthy figure in journalism. And again, this story is based entirely around his credibility in the first place, so there's really no other place for this discussion to end up.
  - pvg 4y ago
    the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant It's not. It's just a rationalization for the name calling. No attempt to elevate it into some reasoned point about the article is going to make it not-name calling. there's really no other place for this discussion to end up. Whatever the place is, it's just not here because you just can't go 'story I don't believe' -> 'mentally deficient person'. It's a completely straightforward thing to not do.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      I haven't said it's not name calling, but only that it is not an ad hominem, as the very thing in question is Mr Hersh's credibility. Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly? If, say, Linus Pauling published in the 90s something along the lines of 'I've discovered the secret to immortality, and no, I won't provide any verifiable evidence for it, you just have to trust me' after decades of passing off Vitamin C as a cure for cancer, and everybody was saying 'well Linus Pauling is one of the greatest biochemists of our time, he's won the Nobel Prize', is it out of bounds to say, well, maybe at one point, but the man is 90 now and clearly lost his marbles some years ago?
      - pvg 4y ago
        Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly? That's not actually the thing you are getting all this flak for - we don't have to decide or agree if it's 'wrong' on some broad scale or whether or not it constitutes a logical fallacy. It's corrosive to the notion of a (however imperfect and irritating) internet forum that aims for interestingness and curious conversation. Which is why it's in the written guidelines, the reams of mod comments, the mod-scolding you got earlier. Globally wrong or not, you can't do it on HN because it would kill HN.
        mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, perhaps an Internet forum that aims for interestingness and curious conversation should also aim for the intellectual honesty of admitting that the mental faculties of individuals diminish as they age.
dang 4y ago
No, you can't attack someone by putting them down as "senile and old" here. Doing it because you disagree with someone is particularly distasteful. Please don't do the putdown/name-calling/slur thing on HN at all. You can make your substantive points without any of that. (Edit: I see pvg already made this point, and I don't mean to pile on, but maybe it's important for a moderator to make this clear.)
- mannerheim 4y ago
  I didn't do it because I disagreed, I did it because the 'trustworthiness' of Mr Hersh is the very thing in question, and a discussion about a story based entirely off of his word and credibility alone had no other way of ending up. Again, I would love to argue on the merits of the evidence Mr Hersh has presented - but too bad he hasn't given any! Where else could this discussion end up other than whether or not Mr Hersh is credible? It is not an ad hominem when the entire basis of an argument is 'so-and-so says so'. Well, I think so-and-so is full of shit; why isn't that a valid point of inquiry?

pvg 4y ago

The whole point is that namecalling/internet diagnosis is not acceptable. You can't 'it's just colourful language' your way out of that.

mannerheim 4y ago
As I've said elsewhere, the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant to the matter as the discussion was already revolving around whether or not he's a trustworthy figure in journalism. And again, this story is based entirely around his credibility in the first place, so there's really no other place for this discussion to end up.
- pvg 4y ago
  the question of whether or not Mr Hersh possesses a sound mind is relevant It's not. It's just a rationalization for the name calling. No attempt to elevate it into some reasoned point about the article is going to make it not-name calling. there's really no other place for this discussion to end up. Whatever the place is, it's just not here because you just can't go 'story I don't believe' -> 'mentally deficient person'. It's a completely straightforward thing to not do.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    I haven't said it's not name calling, but only that it is not an ad hominem, as the very thing in question is Mr Hersh's credibility. Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly? If, say, Linus Pauling published in the 90s something along the lines of 'I've discovered the secret to immortality, and no, I won't provide any verifiable evidence for it, you just have to trust me' after decades of passing off Vitamin C as a cure for cancer, and everybody was saying 'well Linus Pauling is one of the greatest biochemists of our time, he's won the Nobel Prize', is it out of bounds to say, well, maybe at one point, but the man is 90 now and clearly lost his marbles some years ago?
    - pvg 4y ago
      Is it wrong to suggest someone who has made a number of outlandish claims in recent years and is quite elderly is suffering from a degraded mental state, as we all know is wont to happen to the elderly? That's not actually the thing you are getting all this flak for - we don't have to decide or agree if it's 'wrong' on some broad scale or whether or not it constitutes a logical fallacy. It's corrosive to the notion of a (however imperfect and irritating) internet forum that aims for interestingness and curious conversation. Which is why it's in the written guidelines, the reams of mod comments, the mod-scolding you got earlier. Globally wrong or not, you can't do it on HN because it would kill HN.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Well, perhaps an Internet forum that aims for interestingness and curious conversation should also aim for the intellectual honesty of admitting that the mental faculties of individuals diminish as they age.

dang 4y ago

No, you can't attack someone by putting them down as "senile and old" here. Doing it because you disagree with someone is particularly distasteful. Please don't do the putdown/name-calling/slur thing on HN at all. You can make your substantive points without any of that. (Edit: I see pvg already made this point, and I don't mean to pile on, but maybe it's important for a moderator to make this clear.)

mannerheim 4y ago
I didn't do it because I disagreed, I did it because the 'trustworthiness' of Mr Hersh is the very thing in question, and a discussion about a story based entirely off of his word and credibility alone had no other way of ending up. Again, I would love to argue on the merits of the evidence Mr Hersh has presented - but too bad he hasn't given any! Where else could this discussion end up other than whether or not Mr Hersh is credible? It is not an ad hominem when the entire basis of an argument is 'so-and-so says so'. Well, I think so-and-so is full of shit; why isn't that a valid point of inquiry?