5 ms·

There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for the word fanboy and its derivatives. When I see it I immediately know rational conversation is over.

by iand 14y ago

white_devil 14y ago
A fanboy is a fanboy. There's nothing wrong with pointing one out. Just be glad I didn't spell it "fanboi".
- DanBC 14y ago
  The post you replied to (with the "GooGoo Fanboy" term) was overly vociferous. But that's when it's most important to avoid words like 'fanboy' because otherwise discussion dies. People probably thought you had a good point, but you lose that when you use words like 'googoo fanboy'. And that'll do nothing to sway the person you're replying to. If anything it'll just entrench them even more.
  - white_devil 14y ago
    > But that's when it's most important to avoid words like 'fanboy' because otherwise discussion dies. Any discussion with a raging fanboy is dead to begin with. He will reject anything that goes against his rose-tinted view of Google. Reason and logic won't reach him, and that's why it's alright to just call him a fanboy and move on, even though that's pointless too, of course. In this case, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of calling iOS a "complete joke". > And that'll do nothing to sway the person you're replying to. If anything it'll just entrench them even more. That's alright. He's already plenty entrenched. He'll change his views when he has to.
  - bennyg 14y ago
    How can you call that overly vociferous without thinking the same thing about "Apple's joke of an operating system"?
    - DanBC 14y ago
      I was calling 'apple's joke of an OS' overly vociferous, not 'googoo fanboy'.
  - moogleii 14y ago
    I didn't really think so. I thought GooGoo Fanboy was apt satire myself. The hyperbole of the original poster clearly showed that he/she was already very entrenched anyway. And considering it's possible that debating someone's strongly held points with logical counter points will only irrationally strengthen the person's original beliefs anyway, I think humor was appropriate: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/#.UWgXgZOG1yU http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...
    - bobbydavid 14y ago
      Even if that's true, there are still many other HN readers watching the conversation who may be more open to logical arguments from either side. So I think it's still "worth it" to respond in a meaningful way, even though you may not convince the original poster.
- scott_s 14y ago
  It adds to the noise, so, yes, there is something wrong with pointing it out.
PavlovsCat 14y ago
Then actually look up Godwin's law. It says something about the probability of a Nazi comparison occuring, but nothing about that loosing the argument or ending the conversation. And that's just as well, because why would it be otherwise? Because Godwin said so? What, is he Adolf Hitler or something?
- cleis 14y ago
  The corollary to Godwin's law is that the first person to bring up the Nazis automatically loses the argument.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    A law and a corollary are still two distinct things. What people like to claim Godwin's law says, it doesn't actually. And that one is just one of many corollaries (not "the corollary") many random people made up because they could, and which I reject because they have no basis in valid reasoning. After all, the only argument here is "someone said that". Why do people who believe nonsense on someone elses say-so object to Nazi comparisons? Well, well ^^
    - solistice 14y ago
      "The Nazis and the Soviets both used intimidation tactics to further their political power". Ohhh...it seems I have lost the argument. Horrible pity, really.
  - drharris 14y ago
    We need a new law that states whoever brings up Godwin's Law without Nazis being mentioned also loses the argument.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for the word fanboy and its derivatives. When I see it I immediately know rational conversation is over.

by iand 14y ago

There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for the word fanboy and its derivatives. When I see it I immediately know rational conversation is over.

white_devil 14y ago

A fanboy is a fanboy. There's nothing wrong with pointing one out. Just be glad I didn't spell it "fanboi".

DanBC 14y ago
The post you replied to (with the "GooGoo Fanboy" term) was overly vociferous. But that's when it's most important to avoid words like 'fanboy' because otherwise discussion dies. People probably thought you had a good point, but you lose that when you use words like 'googoo fanboy'. And that'll do nothing to sway the person you're replying to. If anything it'll just entrench them even more.
- white_devil 14y ago
  > But that's when it's most important to avoid words like 'fanboy' because otherwise discussion dies. Any discussion with a raging fanboy is dead to begin with. He will reject anything that goes against his rose-tinted view of Google. Reason and logic won't reach him, and that's why it's alright to just call him a fanboy and move on, even though that's pointless too, of course. In this case, I just wanted to point out the absurdity of calling iOS a "complete joke". > And that'll do nothing to sway the person you're replying to. If anything it'll just entrench them even more. That's alright. He's already plenty entrenched. He'll change his views when he has to.
- bennyg 14y ago
  How can you call that overly vociferous without thinking the same thing about "Apple's joke of an operating system"?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    I was calling 'apple's joke of an OS' overly vociferous, not 'googoo fanboy'.
- moogleii 14y ago
  I didn't really think so. I thought GooGoo Fanboy was apt satire myself. The hyperbole of the original poster clearly showed that he/she was already very entrenched anyway. And considering it's possible that debating someone's strongly held points with logical counter points will only irrationally strengthen the person's original beliefs anyway, I think humor was appropriate: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/#.UWgXgZOG1yU http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...
  - bobbydavid 14y ago
    Even if that's true, there are still many other HN readers watching the conversation who may be more open to logical arguments from either side. So I think it's still "worth it" to respond in a meaningful way, even though you may not convince the original poster.
scott_s 14y ago
It adds to the noise, so, yes, there is something wrong with pointing it out.

PavlovsCat 14y ago

Then actually look up Godwin's law. It says something about the probability of a Nazi comparison occuring, but nothing about that loosing the argument or ending the conversation. And that's just as well, because why would it be otherwise? Because Godwin said so? What, is he Adolf Hitler or something?

cleis 14y ago
The corollary to Godwin's law is that the first person to bring up the Nazis automatically loses the argument.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  A law and a corollary are still two distinct things. What people like to claim Godwin's law says, it doesn't actually. And that one is just one of many corollaries (not "the corollary") many random people made up because they could, and which I reject because they have no basis in valid reasoning. After all, the only argument here is "someone said that". Why do people who believe nonsense on someone elses say-so object to Nazi comparisons? Well, well ^^
  - solistice 14y ago
    "The Nazis and the Soviets both used intimidation tactics to further their political power". Ohhh...it seems I have lost the argument. Horrible pity, really.
- drharris 14y ago
  We need a new law that states whoever brings up Godwin's Law without Nazis being mentioned also loses the argument.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]