3 ms·
"All they seem to be capable of mustering is name calling-- like you called me "far out" "uninformed" "wrong", "misleading", "fundamentalist", etc, without neve
by llambda 15y ago
"All they seem to be capable of mustering is name calling-- like you called me "far out" "uninformed" "wrong", "misleading", "fundamentalist", etc, without never once backing up these claims, making them essentially pure ad hominem."
Wrong. This is no ad hominem, this is you, nirvana, trying to reframe the discussion to your benefit: The OP explicitly says these things in regard to your "views" and the "post", not you[1]. It's only you who insists on characterizing yourself as the victim here. Rather than actually responding to the criticism of the content of your post you instead try to reframe the discussion as an attack on you (which it clearly is not) as opposed to an evaluation of our views (which it clearly is). Too bad you never seem to actually address criticism of your ideology and instead leave with the cop out, "You can't disprove my opinions to myself so therefore I must be right."
Really disappointing to see this kind of shenanigans on HN.
[1] "There's a whole bunch else about your post that's plainly wrong or misleading...In general your post is a rant...Finally I think the tolerance and celebration of these views--hardcore, far-out, and relatively uninformed--in the tech community is a discrediting force..." These are related to the "post" or the "views" and not the person making or holding them.
- nirvana 15y ago"Your post is fascist, and your views are mindless, based on an unthinking ideology which has, at its core, the exploitation of the innocent for your own personal gain." The above sentence is addressing your post, your views and your ideology, in the same way you claim he was addressing my "post" and my "views". (and my ideology). It is a painfully transparent way to call you "fascist", "mindless", "unthinking", "exploitative" and "evil". If he were actually addressing my points, he could rebut them. To rebut them, requires several elements. First he has to honestly accept what I'm saying-- thus knocking down a strawman is not actually addressing a point, and thus not rebutting it. Second he has to bring facts, logic or reason to show why the point is in error. Simply calling the point names (as you claim he is doing) is not actually rebuttal. He didn't respond to my point at all, he misrepresented it characterize me and then characterized me, while pretending not to. I saw thru it. It seems silly that you'd think that, having seen thru it, I would suddenly think otherwise. I think the motivation of your response is also that you disagree with me, but rather than rebut my points, you're jumping into the flay because he made it personal. Nothing convinces me of the correctness of my perspective like my opponents fear of it.