4 ms·
Neither of these seem ad hom? Examining how someone’s wealth biases their worldview is hardly an attack on their person and pointing out that one of the archite
by meheleventyone 3y ago
Neither of these seem ad hom? Examining how someone’s wealth biases their worldview is hardly an attack on their person and pointing out that one of the architects and inspirations for Fascism is called a Patron Saint isn’t either. The latter isn’t even ‘guilty by association’ as the author freely makes that association themselves by speaking glowingly of them.
- fastball 3y agoMarc Andreessen having a biased worldview is completely irrelevant to the quality of his arguments or positions, yet the implication in the TC article is exactly that (that maybe you shouldn't take his opinions about economics and technology too seriously because he's a billionaire after all). Filippo Tommaso Marinetti is more well known as the founder of the Futurist movement, which is presumably what Andreessen is referencing here. Implying (or outright stating) that Marinetti's ideas on Futurism can be safely ignored because he also has less palatable ideas re:Fascism is a textbook example of Ad Hominem.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chx 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37926150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37926150 and also check the edit of my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925583
- true_religion 3y agoMarinetti even tried to have futurism declared the state art of Italy, which would in effect suppress all other art styles. In this case it seems his views were intertwined, at least in practical application. So it’s relevant to discuss both at the same time.
- surgical_fire 3y ago> Implying (or outright stating) that Marinetti's ideas on Futurism can be safely ignored because he also has less palatable ideas re:Fascism is a textbook example of Ad Hominem. Except it is not. Or you have no idea of what Ad Hominem arguments are - i.e.: You attack the person instead of the arguments. In the case of Marinetti, both his positions regarding Futurism and Fascism are intrinsically connected, sharing a noticeable relationship within his world view. To ignore the "less palatable" portion of his worldview to make Futurism more palatable would be faulty reasoning.
- fastball 3y agoAttacking a person's worldview is in fact attacking the person, not the arguments. The arguments being inextricably linked in Marinetti's head does not impact their validity outside his head.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoAs others have pointed out, even the futurist manifesto is highly problematic. That's what's outside his head - his arguments. And it's arguments that Andreessen is endorsing. So no, this is not an ad hominem.
- surgical_fire 3y agoAbsolutely not, when we are discussing the philosophical basis of that worldview. Those arguments are not simply "linked in Marinetti's head". they are parts of a broader ser of views that would organize the world in a certain manner. This is brought up due to an apparent endorsement of the author to Marinetti's ideas. Commenters pointing that out is absolutely not an Ad Hominem when those very ideas are being discussed. I don't remember if there's an informal fallacy of falsely claiming an informal fallacy, but calling this an Ad Hominem is a great example of such.
- fastball 3y agoThe ideas are not being discussed. The primary criticism in the OP was "Marinetti was fascist so ignore".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]