5 ms·

Maybe we pay attention because... they have interesting things to say? Why discuss an ad hominem argument here?

by ntoshev 18y ago

tptacek 18y ago
The title of the post is, "Schneier reviews: Here Comes Everybody". If the title had been "Smith reviews: Here Comes Everybody", it wouldn't have an upvote. It's newsworthy because of who wrote it, and comments about the newsworthiness of a story (and, if you read carefully, the content of the article) are germane to discussion. We have to stop throwing around the term "ad hominem" as if talking about people and their authority is automatically out of bounds. We're a sprawling collection of personality cults, and the echo chamber affect is a real issue. Or am I not still reading Zed vs. DHH spats here?
- corentin 18y ago
  > If the title had been "Smith reviews: Here Comes Everybody", it wouldn't have an upvote. That's because it's far from conveying as much information as the alternative.
- ntoshev 18y ago
  To me it is not newsworthy because of who wrote it: the name of the author is just a predictor of quality. If the predictor is wrong in this particular case, tell me about it, and then I'll be willing to hear why it is wrong in general. He may have become famous undeservedly; it doesn't matter as long as this particular article is good.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    I'm not attacking you. You obviously just have a different perspective than me on this issue. That's why we have comments.
    - ntoshev 18y ago
      I know you are not attacking me, but I wish you were attacking my argument :) or author's arguments, for that matter :)
- whatusername 18y ago
  And if had been "Adam Smith reviews: Here Comes Everybody" then it would be newsworthy. The "Founder of Capitalism" would have valuable thoughts about Coases Ceiling (and book reading zombies would also be newsworthy (to me at least))
  - tptacek 18y ago
    You've lost the plot. A discussion about whether Adam Smith's point of view about Clay Shirkey is interesting is a valid topic of conversation; the dispute here is that someone on HN thinks it wouldn't be.

Maybe we pay attention because... they have interesting things to say? Why discuss an ad hominem argument here?

by ntoshev 18y ago

Maybe we pay attention because... they have interesting things to say? Why discuss an ad hominem argument here?

The title of the post is, "Schneier reviews: Here Comes Everybody". If the title had been "Smith reviews: Here Comes Everybody", it wouldn't have an upvote. It's newsworthy because of who wrote it, and comments about the newsworthiness of a story (and, if you read carefully, the content of the article) are germane to discussion. We have to stop throwing around the term "ad hominem" as if talking about people and their authority is automatically out of bounds. We're a sprawling collection of personality cults, and the echo chamber affect is a real issue. Or am I not still reading Zed vs. DHH spats here?

corentin 18y ago
> If the title had been "Smith reviews: Here Comes Everybody", it wouldn't have an upvote. That's because it's far from conveying as much information as the alternative.
ntoshev 18y ago
To me it is not newsworthy because of who wrote it: the name of the author is just a predictor of quality. If the predictor is wrong in this particular case, tell me about it, and then I'll be willing to hear why it is wrong in general. He may have become famous undeservedly; it doesn't matter as long as this particular article is good.
- tptacek 18y ago
  I'm not attacking you. You obviously just have a different perspective than me on this issue. That's why we have comments.
  - ntoshev 18y ago
    I know you are not attacking me, but I wish you were attacking my argument :) or author's arguments, for that matter :)
whatusername 18y ago
And if had been "Adam Smith reviews: Here Comes Everybody" then it would be newsworthy. The "Founder of Capitalism" would have valuable thoughts about Coases Ceiling (and book reading zombies would also be newsworthy (to me at least))
- tptacek 18y ago
  You've lost the plot. A discussion about whether Adam Smith's point of view about Clay Shirkey is interesting is a valid topic of conversation; the dispute here is that someone on HN thinks it wouldn't be.