5 ms·

[flagged]

by JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago

[flagged]

dragontamer 4y ago
[flagged]
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
  > the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism" We're so fucked.
  - dang 4y ago
    Can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately and we have to ban such accounts because we're trying to be a different kind of site than that, and would prefer not to burn to a crisp. Scorched earth isn't ineresting. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20scorched%20earth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- dang 4y ago
  > I conclude you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism" Please don't take HN threads further into political/national flamewar, and please follow the HN rule against calling names in arguments a little more broadly. The epithet "whataboutism" qualifies as the latter—it's a label that's used to silence argument rather than respond to it. If someone brings up an example that's not relevant, a counterargument should explain what the difference is that makes it irrelevant—not simply denounce it based on what side it's on. Past explanations here if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRan...
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I mean, I could use the term "non-sequitur" (ie: an argument that is ultimately irrelevant in the current discussion, designed to distract rather than inspire) but it feels like you're just following it up with the fallacy-fallacy. At some point, describing the opponent's argument style in what I feel is going on is important. Its a meta label. If you think "whataboutism" is a poor term, then I'll substitute non-sequitur from here on out. But I don't think my discussion point changes. It is a fallacy to distract from an argument by posting irrelevant stuff. If I make a challenge with whataboutism (or non-sequitur), the correct response is the same. The opponent should better describe why their words are relevant to the discussion. Or alternatively, change their argument's form so that it is relevant to the discussion. ------------ You're right that over use of fallacies / labels can lead to a fallacy, ie: the fallacy-fallacy. That is, someone using fallacies could be making a good point and still be contributing to the discussion. And its a mistake to focus on their poor form rather than their good points. But the labeling of points / fallacies / and naming of those points is very useful at speeding up debates in my experience and in the typical case. It concisely describes my opinion and sets up a pattern of understanding. So I don't think its a bad thing. It very much depends on the situation. That is to say: its only a "fallacy fallacy" if I'm ignoring the good points and killing the debate. I'm not sure if I've committed this sin in this case. The other poster seems to have simply stated "What about Hawaii?" without much elaboration on why or how Hawaii could be even relevant to Taiwan... or Tiktok.
    - dang 4y ago
      I think you already made that core point in your first sentence. There wasn't any need to add further epithets, and when you stoop to 'you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism"' that's definitely pouring unwanted fuel on an unwanted fire, as well as arguably a personal attack, or at least something that's pretty likely to land as such with the other person.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        Okay. I'll keep that in mind moving forward.

[flagged]

dragontamer 4y ago

[flagged]

JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
> the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism" We're so fucked.
- dang 4y ago
  Can you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately and we have to ban such accounts because we're trying to be a different kind of site than that, and would prefer not to burn to a crisp. Scorched earth isn't ineresting. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20scorched%20earth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
dang 4y ago
> I conclude you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism" Please don't take HN threads further into political/national flamewar, and please follow the HN rule against calling names in arguments a little more broadly. The epithet "whataboutism" qualifies as the latter—it's a label that's used to silence argument rather than respond to it. If someone brings up an example that's not relevant, a counterargument should explain what the difference is that makes it irrelevant—not simply denounce it based on what side it's on. Past explanations here if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whataboutism%20by:dang&dateRan...
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I mean, I could use the term "non-sequitur" (ie: an argument that is ultimately irrelevant in the current discussion, designed to distract rather than inspire) but it feels like you're just following it up with the fallacy-fallacy. At some point, describing the opponent's argument style in what I feel is going on is important. Its a meta label. If you think "whataboutism" is a poor term, then I'll substitute non-sequitur from here on out. But I don't think my discussion point changes. It is a fallacy to distract from an argument by posting irrelevant stuff. If I make a challenge with whataboutism (or non-sequitur), the correct response is the same. The opponent should better describe why their words are relevant to the discussion. Or alternatively, change their argument's form so that it is relevant to the discussion. ------------ You're right that over use of fallacies / labels can lead to a fallacy, ie: the fallacy-fallacy. That is, someone using fallacies could be making a good point and still be contributing to the discussion. And its a mistake to focus on their poor form rather than their good points. But the labeling of points / fallacies / and naming of those points is very useful at speeding up debates in my experience and in the typical case. It concisely describes my opinion and sets up a pattern of understanding. So I don't think its a bad thing. It very much depends on the situation. That is to say: its only a "fallacy fallacy" if I'm ignoring the good points and killing the debate. I'm not sure if I've committed this sin in this case. The other poster seems to have simply stated "What about Hawaii?" without much elaboration on why or how Hawaii could be even relevant to Taiwan... or Tiktok.
  - dang 4y ago
    I think you already made that core point in your first sentence. There wasn't any need to add further epithets, and when you stoop to 'you're trying to do the Russian propaganda technique "whataboutism"' that's definitely pouring unwanted fuel on an unwanted fire, as well as arguably a personal attack, or at least something that's pretty likely to land as such with the other person.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Okay. I'll keep that in mind moving forward.