4 ms·

> Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period: > https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?fea

• pphysch 3y ago
  Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets?
  • _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. The fact that Jeffery Sachs even appeared on the show 100% colours his view on Ukraine. It’s not “anti-intellectualism” to think that someone who went on the “we should nuke Ukraine show” to talk about how Ukraine should surrender, perhaps doesn’t have the most unbiased opinion about Ukraine. > I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets? I don’t think they’re comparable really, the show that Jeffery Sachs gladly appeared on has content that is incredibly extreme and feels something more akin to propaganda then any tv I can think of in the west.
  • labster 3y ago
    > Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. I have never seen an internet poster so clearly and succinctly describe the problems with their own arguments. Congrats!
    • pphysch 3y ago
      Where did I ever employ ad hominem? Is identifying a conflict of interest forbidden now? Sachs' appearance on a Russian broadcast is not remotely comparable to the fundamental participation of the Kagans in both ISW and the Ukraine crisis. You ought to reflect on the fact that you outright reject everything Sachs has to say because he appeared on the wrong TV channel, yet you give me flack for only tepidly endorsing warmonger-run ISW. Is that the kind of toxic monoculture you want to perpetuate on HN?
      • labster 3y ago
        I have never said anything about Sachs one way or another online or in-person anywhere, ever, in my entire life, because I have no idea who you’re talking about. Your accusation is baseless slander.
        • pphysch 3y ago
          > Your accusation is baseless slander. Rich coming from someone who struggles yet to make a single substantive comment, and can only evade and spew uninformed bile. Not what I'm on HN for. Good bye!
          • dang 3y ago
            You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that, as you should know because we've given you many warnings in the past. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36843398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36843398 (July 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35843312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35843312 (May 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30593145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30593145 (March 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128649 (Jan 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29629671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29629671 (Dec 2021) I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've been making a habit of this recently—though I did see some bad recent examples that weren't in this thread—but we need you to review the rules and fix this properly if you want to keep posting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. No matter how right you are or feel you are, you're abusing the site when you do this, and contributing to destroying it for its intended purpose. We have no choice but to eventually ban such accounts. Moreover, it isn't in your interests to post like this because, by doing so, you discredit your own position (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I mention this because users arguing for contrarian or minority views often end up breaking the site guidelines like this—it's a known dynamic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20minority%20contrarian%20view&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), and the only solution I know of is to know this and consciously practice not falling into it.