4 ms·

yea I tried that. I posted links to all my sources as well as opinions from credible human rights organizations. they just play the game of being obtuse to the

yea I tried that. I posted links to all my sources as well as opinions from credible human rights organizations. they just play the game of being obtuse to the very end and then gaslight you about needing to backup my opinions as if there weren't at least 2-3 inks for every assertion I make. one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
So what? People will see your sources and see what the other person writes and they can make up their own minds.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  What I have observed is that you refute that actual bullshit with facts and then they come back with some other "whatabout" and new bullshit.
  - tim333 3y ago
    While I guess it's not in HN guidelines I think humour can work sometimes.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    thats a good indicator that you should stop commenting in online message boards. This (and a litany of other reasons) is why "internet comments" have a terrible reputation. Comment boards have been around 20+ years and no one has yet been able to create a system that doesn't encourage degeneracy.
  - dang 3y ago
    The trick is to realize that if you've made a good point, readers will be smart enough to notice that the other person is just coming back with new bullshit. You don't need the last word to win an argument; being first to walk away actually adds power to your argument. If you've said what needs to be said, no "whatabout" can cancel it, and you'll weaken your case if you chase after it. I still suck at this in practice but I'm sure of it in theory! (I'm working on a longer reply to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39158911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39158911, but I can't resist replying here too because I feel like I figured this one out after 15+ years of frustration.)
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Say whatever else you will about him but pg was really good at this.
      - pvg 3y ago
        At least it's an ethos!
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Agreed on both the advice and the difficulty of engaging in practice. What I'll frequently do where a counterparty has looped back to an earlier position is to simply link directly to my earlier response to that point, with the implicit statement "we've already covered this ground, I'm not going to repeat myself". Walking away from such discussions is still challenging as there's always a temptation to respond. This is where employing HN's thread-collapse feature is useful. I'll typically do this at some point above my final response. The threads remain closed until the post is about two weeks old per earlier discussions with dang.
peanutcrisis 3y ago
I think that's in part because the sources that were once credible, i.e. NGOs, universities, media, and other cultural institutions, have taken a hit to their own reputation as a result of their institutional capture over the years. For every article you can find in support of one camp, one could find a counter piece from other credible sources as well (i.e. NYT vs The Economist and The Atlantic). For every NGO one can quote, someone else can quote from someone who've resigned, or once run/founded the very NGO that they're now criticizing (i.e. Danielle Haas, Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Bob Bernstein). You can even pitch the NGOs against one another, such as HRW and Amnesty against the ADL. Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. After all, it would be rather surprising for a consumer of news to hold their view with that much confidence when even the mainstream sources they are relying on is in dispute with one another.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. I don't think it is due to "bad faith actors" at all. I think it is better explained by (1) Israel/Palestine is a really hard problem, one where both sides have done wrong, and the "side" one is on often comes down with which wrong angers you more (which is more a question of subjective emotions than objective reasons), (2) the increasing tribalism and political polarisation of Western (and especially US) society, which gets overlaid on the Israel/Palestine conflict, however roughly (right-leaning people nowadays skew pro-Israel and left-leaning pro-Palestine, although there are an ever-shrinking number of exceptions to both generalisations) The "bad faith actors" explanation is attractive precisely because it paints the problem as simpler and less intractable than it actually is
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

So what? People will see your sources and see what the other person writes and they can make up their own minds.

jnsaff2 3y ago
What I have observed is that you refute that actual bullshit with facts and then they come back with some other "whatabout" and new bullshit.
- tim333 3y ago
  While I guess it's not in HN guidelines I think humour can work sometimes.
- gosub100 3y ago
  thats a good indicator that you should stop commenting in online message boards. This (and a litany of other reasons) is why "internet comments" have a terrible reputation. Comment boards have been around 20+ years and no one has yet been able to create a system that doesn't encourage degeneracy.
- dang 3y ago
  The trick is to realize that if you've made a good point, readers will be smart enough to notice that the other person is just coming back with new bullshit. You don't need the last word to win an argument; being first to walk away actually adds power to your argument. If you've said what needs to be said, no "whatabout" can cancel it, and you'll weaken your case if you chase after it. I still suck at this in practice but I'm sure of it in theory! (I'm working on a longer reply to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39158911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39158911, but I can't resist replying here too because I feel like I figured this one out after 15+ years of frustration.)
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Say whatever else you will about him but pg was really good at this.
    - pvg 3y ago
      At least it's an ethos!
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Agreed on both the advice and the difficulty of engaging in practice. What I'll frequently do where a counterparty has looped back to an earlier position is to simply link directly to my earlier response to that point, with the implicit statement "we've already covered this ground, I'm not going to repeat myself". Walking away from such discussions is still challenging as there's always a temptation to respond. This is where employing HN's thread-collapse feature is useful. I'll typically do this at some point above my final response. The threads remain closed until the post is about two weeks old per earlier discussions with dang.

peanutcrisis 3y ago

I think that's in part because the sources that were once credible, i.e. NGOs, universities, media, and other cultural institutions, have taken a hit to their own reputation as a result of their institutional capture over the years. For every article you can find in support of one camp, one could find a counter piece from other credible sources as well (i.e. NYT vs The Economist and The Atlantic). For every NGO one can quote, someone else can quote from someone who've resigned, or once run/founded the very NGO that they're now criticizing (i.e. Danielle Haas, Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Bob Bernstein). You can even pitch the NGOs against one another, such as HRW and Amnesty against the ADL. Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. After all, it would be rather surprising for a consumer of news to hold their view with that much confidence when even the mainstream sources they are relying on is in dispute with one another.

skissane 3y ago
> Ultimately, bad faith actors are indeed the root cause of the problem. However, I think the bigger problem here is the inability of these bad faith actors to recognize that belong to the very group they're criticizing. If facts were all that mattered, I would expect to see more people expressing more nuanced takes, or express more uncertainty. I don't think it is due to "bad faith actors" at all. I think it is better explained by (1) Israel/Palestine is a really hard problem, one where both sides have done wrong, and the "side" one is on often comes down with which wrong angers you more (which is more a question of subjective emotions than objective reasons), (2) the increasing tribalism and political polarisation of Western (and especially US) society, which gets overlaid on the Israel/Palestine conflict, however roughly (right-leaning people nowadays skew pro-Israel and left-leaning pro-Palestine, although there are an ever-shrinking number of exceptions to both generalisations) The "bad faith actors" explanation is attractive precisely because it paints the problem as simpler and less intractable than it actually is
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago