3 ms·

> The argument you present here is simply not intellectually honest (and I have seen very similar arguments countless times over the years). It takes a special

by latexr 2y ago

> The argument you present here is simply not intellectually honest (and I have seen very similar arguments countless times over the years). It takes a special kind of gall to accuse another of intellectual dishonesty by using a Wikipedia article as proof and in under thirty minutes in the same thread say that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42011586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42011586 Hard to find a better example of intellectual dishonesty than using a source as proof when it supports your argument and decrying it as unreliable when it doesn’t.

zahlman 2y ago
I did not use that Wikipedia article as proof. I used it to cite the well known phenomenon to which I referred. There are plenty of sources available in the article to follow up on. Furthermore, the article I linked to is clearly distinct along the lines that I described in the other post: it's not trying to paint a historical narrative, but to document a phenomenon noted by researchers. I had thought this was a place where people don't stalk other users to try to attack them personally. (Also, your attempt to try to identify some kind of hypocrisy is ignoring the actual critique I offered of your own source.)
- latexr 2y ago
  It’s the same thread, and a fairly short one. I read it again looking for new insights, as I often do, found someone criticising Wikipedia, and looked at the user name. Calling that stalking is delusional. Or, dare I say it, intellectually dishonest. My initial response was different, and I even thanked you for the correction, but I deleted it and posted a new one after suspecting (as per the above) that you might not be arguing in good faith. Please don’t try to play the victim when you’re the one who initiated the conversation with personal attacks.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - zahlman 2y ago
    "The argument you present here..." is not a personal attack. It's a statement about the argument. "It takes a special kind of gall to..." is. It's a claim about the person making the argument.

by latexr 2y ago

zahlman 2y ago

I did not use that Wikipedia article as proof. I used it to cite the well known phenomenon to which I referred. There are plenty of sources available in the article to follow up on. Furthermore, the article I linked to is clearly distinct along the lines that I described in the other post: it's not trying to paint a historical narrative, but to document a phenomenon noted by researchers. I had thought this was a place where people don't stalk other users to try to attack them personally. (Also, your attempt to try to identify some kind of hypocrisy is ignoring the actual critique I offered of your own source.)

latexr 2y ago
It’s the same thread, and a fairly short one. I read it again looking for new insights, as I often do, found someone criticising Wikipedia, and looked at the user name. Calling that stalking is delusional. Or, dare I say it, intellectually dishonest. My initial response was different, and I even thanked you for the correction, but I deleted it and posted a new one after suspecting (as per the above) that you might not be arguing in good faith. Please don’t try to play the victim when you’re the one who initiated the conversation with personal attacks.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- zahlman 2y ago
  "The argument you present here..." is not a personal attack. It's a statement about the argument. "It takes a special kind of gall to..." is. It's a claim about the person making the argument.