2 ms·

> Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above me

by anamax 14y ago

> Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece. Shorter sophacles "I try to appear objective so don't notice that I'm applying a double standard". Namely, he'll make up stuff about Koch and their ilk but folks he agrees with get a pass. And he expects to be praised for this. > A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things, is that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an article over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free speech. That part was so important that it didn't rate a mention until he got called on the Koch fallacy. That might have been an interesting discussion, but he was more interested in poisoning the well.

Karunamon 14y ago
>but he was more interested in poisoning the well. Really. Mentioning that a group has typically right-wing views is considered poisoning the well. How the heck does THAT work? You've done a hell of a lot of assuming both about me and my position based on nothing more than saying a group has right wing views. Is that somehow incorrect?
- anamax 14y ago
  You've made several choices. Those choices have consequences. If you didn't intend them.... For example, you've never bothered to point out that other groups have left-wing views. And, as I pointed out, you could have discussed the content. Instead, you went with an unfounded smear. (Edit: He intended it as a smear and believes that all right-thinking people take Koch-association as damning.) I apologise for pointing this out.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    I think it reflects more on you that you consider "having right wing views" to be a smear and poisoning the well and the like. And where do you know all this stuff about me, is the other thing I'd like to know. How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation?
    - anamax 14y ago
      > How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation? I made a claim about your past behavior. Maybe your future behavior will be different.
sophacles 14y ago
First of all - are you confusing me with gp poster? It seems that way. I just like calling people out on falsely declaring fallacy. I do it a lot, check my comment history. Second, this conflation was on my list of "to discuss" about the article (obviously I can't prove this, and the tone of your comment suggests you won't believe it anyway, but I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt), it just also helped me in my fallacy fallacy busting. Third as to your fallacies: 1. I never made stuff up about Koch et al., hell I didn't even make any comments about them either way. Thanks for actually making stuff up about me (while cleverly disguising it in an accusation of the same. Further, I have never previously said anything about koch, if you google ' sophacles koch ' your comment is the first hit, followed a bunch of academic stuff and some old comment in a thread where someone else mentions Koch. 2. I tend to point out biases and conflations whether or not I agree with them. Or I try to anyway. In this case, yes I generally don't like the Cato institute, but if you look at my writing above, I think it's pretty obvious I agree with the premise that a computer is not independent of the people programming it for free speech purposes. If you would like to make a comprehensive list of my comments showing otherwise (not cherry picking the ones that don't support your statement, but say a random sampling or something), I will gladly rescind this point. 3. All your concern over poisoning the well and fake "objectiveness" certainly seems a bit wasted in the same comment where you make actually nasty statements against me, and throw a bone about how something "might have been an interesting discussion". It just makes your statement meaner, and look super defensive.

by anamax 14y ago

Karunamon 14y ago

>but he was more interested in poisoning the well. Really. Mentioning that a group has typically right-wing views is considered poisoning the well. How the heck does THAT work? You've done a hell of a lot of assuming both about me and my position based on nothing more than saying a group has right wing views. Is that somehow incorrect?

anamax 14y ago
You've made several choices. Those choices have consequences. If you didn't intend them.... For example, you've never bothered to point out that other groups have left-wing views. And, as I pointed out, you could have discussed the content. Instead, you went with an unfounded smear. (Edit: He intended it as a smear and believes that all right-thinking people take Koch-association as damning.) I apologise for pointing this out.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  I think it reflects more on you that you consider "having right wing views" to be a smear and poisoning the well and the like. And where do you know all this stuff about me, is the other thing I'd like to know. How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation?
  - anamax 14y ago
    > How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation? I made a claim about your past behavior. Maybe your future behavior will be different.

sophacles 14y ago

First of all - are you confusing me with gp poster? It seems that way. I just like calling people out on falsely declaring fallacy. I do it a lot, check my comment history. Second, this conflation was on my list of "to discuss" about the article (obviously I can't prove this, and the tone of your comment suggests you won't believe it anyway, but I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt), it just also helped me in my fallacy fallacy busting. Third as to your fallacies: 1. I never made stuff up about Koch et al., hell I didn't even make any comments about them either way. Thanks for actually making stuff up about me (while cleverly disguising it in an accusation of the same. Further, I have never previously said anything about koch, if you google ' sophacles koch ' your comment is the first hit, followed a bunch of academic stuff and some old comment in a thread where someone else mentions Koch. 2. I tend to point out biases and conflations whether or not I agree with them. Or I try to anyway. In this case, yes I generally don't like the Cato institute, but if you look at my writing above, I think it's pretty obvious I agree with the premise that a computer is not independent of the people programming it for free speech purposes. If you would like to make a comprehensive list of my comments showing otherwise (not cherry picking the ones that don't support your statement, but say a random sampling or something), I will gladly rescind this point. 3. All your concern over poisoning the well and fake "objectiveness" certainly seems a bit wasted in the same comment where you make actually nasty statements against me, and throw a bone about how something "might have been an interesting discussion". It just makes your statement meaner, and look super defensive.