5 ms·

It's really sad to me that the top comment on any thread at HN is ad hominem. I'm not around much but this community really has changed. Seriously, ebbv you ha

by robg 13y ago

It's really sad to me that the top comment on any thread at HN is ad hominem. I'm not around much but this community really has changed. Seriously, ebbv you have nothing to add that is interesting or unique? Calling a columnist at the NY Times a "hack" is hardly original or insightful.

ebbv 13y ago
I pointed out he's shilling for his daughter's friend. That's not enough to support my characterization for you? I think it's plenty. But there's tons of other examples of how terrible Friedman is, and most people don't need me to spell them out because they are very familiar with them already. Do a quick Google search and you'll see what the rest of us already know.
- robg 13y ago
  There's nothing substantial about that "critique". You only know of the relationship because he disclosed it. And any columnist of the last 50 years at the Times provokes the same exact response from a segment of their audience. In fact, as a columnist, that's the point of his job and so your "test" would fail for every columnist at that paper. My point still stands. Your comment adds no value to this community and itself is a comment on the state of this community. You start with ad hominem then work backwards to the "critique". When pushed, you simply re-state the ad hominem. This community used to be much better than that, esp for a top comment in well-read thread. EDIT: At the very least, I'm glad vapid comments aren't staying at the topmost position. I hope that's a combination of downvotes and the time-gravity function. Too bad ad hominem is so easy to upvote and leads to the herd mentality that begets the trivial.
  - ebbv 13y ago
    It's not a critique, it's a simple fact. He's shilling for a friend. That's shady at best. Disclosing it is better than not disclosing it, but using your Times Op Ed column to shill is always shady. "Every columnist" at the Times (or anywhere else) does not elicit the same response that Friedman does. That in itself is a baseless statement, which is something you claim to dislike so very much. Here's a short article pointing out one of the problems with Friedman: http://gawker.com/5921030/thomas-friedman-writes-his-only-column-again http://gawker.com/5921030/thomas-friedman-writes-his-only-co... You seem like you could be a smart person from your profile, so I'd think that if you actually read Friedman with any regularity you'd see what every other intelligent person who reads him does; he's a hack. Call it an ad hominem if you want, but to me it's like saying an apple is red. It's a statement of fact backed up by evidence. Also complaints about how the community used to be so much better based on one comment you don't like being top temporarily is so ridiculous as to be comical. EDIT: Also the subtext of your complaining about the decline of the community is "ebbv get out you make this place worse." To which I say, you're the one who's basically throwing a tantrum because you disagree with me regarding Thomas Friedman.
    - robg 13y ago
      You've done nothing to substantiate that charge of being a shill short of pointing out the very relationship he himself disclosed. As to the claim on columnists all being "hacks", I have little doubt that every single columnist at the NY Times has been called that or worse in their tenure by some segment of their audience. Saying Person X is a "hack" (or troll or asshat) has no place in rational dialogue. It's a non sequitur. Stick to what's being said and dispute that. In this case, that would be a matter of arguing that HireArt is not part of some broad new trend in hiring and being hired. You are very far from arguing contra Friedman. I don't know you. All I know is one ad hominem comment you made and continue to defend. That's a problem for this community and indeed any community that aspires toward rationality. What you continue to be (and this community, even) is only up to you (and us). That you assume I'm throwing a "tantrum" and that I disagree with you on Friedman won't ever get you (or us) there.
      - ebbv 13y ago
        Ok clearly my effort is wasted on you. You are not even reading what I'm saying. So just a couple quick points: 1) Just because someone discloses something doesn't make it ethical / not shilling. 2) I (and others) are not just calling Friedman a hack and leaving it at that as you seem to insist we are. We are calling him a hack and backing it up with evidence -- as I have said repeatedly, and I have pointed you to the evidence. It absolutely does have a place in rational dialogue. You pay lip service to being interested in discussion, but your behavior indicates you are not at all interested as I have attempted to engage you repeatedly and you pay it no heed whatsoever.

by robg 13y ago

ebbv 13y ago

I pointed out he's shilling for his daughter's friend. That's not enough to support my characterization for you? I think it's plenty. But there's tons of other examples of how terrible Friedman is, and most people don't need me to spell them out because they are very familiar with them already. Do a quick Google search and you'll see what the rest of us already know.

robg 13y ago
There's nothing substantial about that "critique". You only know of the relationship because he disclosed it. And any columnist of the last 50 years at the Times provokes the same exact response from a segment of their audience. In fact, as a columnist, that's the point of his job and so your "test" would fail for every columnist at that paper. My point still stands. Your comment adds no value to this community and itself is a comment on the state of this community. You start with ad hominem then work backwards to the "critique". When pushed, you simply re-state the ad hominem. This community used to be much better than that, esp for a top comment in well-read thread. EDIT: At the very least, I'm glad vapid comments aren't staying at the topmost position. I hope that's a combination of downvotes and the time-gravity function. Too bad ad hominem is so easy to upvote and leads to the herd mentality that begets the trivial.
- ebbv 13y ago
  It's not a critique, it's a simple fact. He's shilling for a friend. That's shady at best. Disclosing it is better than not disclosing it, but using your Times Op Ed column to shill is always shady. "Every columnist" at the Times (or anywhere else) does not elicit the same response that Friedman does. That in itself is a baseless statement, which is something you claim to dislike so very much. Here's a short article pointing out one of the problems with Friedman: http://gawker.com/5921030/thomas-friedman-writes-his-only-column-again http://gawker.com/5921030/thomas-friedman-writes-his-only-co... You seem like you could be a smart person from your profile, so I'd think that if you actually read Friedman with any regularity you'd see what every other intelligent person who reads him does; he's a hack. Call it an ad hominem if you want, but to me it's like saying an apple is red. It's a statement of fact backed up by evidence. Also complaints about how the community used to be so much better based on one comment you don't like being top temporarily is so ridiculous as to be comical. EDIT: Also the subtext of your complaining about the decline of the community is "ebbv get out you make this place worse." To which I say, you're the one who's basically throwing a tantrum because you disagree with me regarding Thomas Friedman.
  - robg 13y ago
    You've done nothing to substantiate that charge of being a shill short of pointing out the very relationship he himself disclosed. As to the claim on columnists all being "hacks", I have little doubt that every single columnist at the NY Times has been called that or worse in their tenure by some segment of their audience. Saying Person X is a "hack" (or troll or asshat) has no place in rational dialogue. It's a non sequitur. Stick to what's being said and dispute that. In this case, that would be a matter of arguing that HireArt is not part of some broad new trend in hiring and being hired. You are very far from arguing contra Friedman. I don't know you. All I know is one ad hominem comment you made and continue to defend. That's a problem for this community and indeed any community that aspires toward rationality. What you continue to be (and this community, even) is only up to you (and us). That you assume I'm throwing a "tantrum" and that I disagree with you on Friedman won't ever get you (or us) there.
    - ebbv 13y ago
      Ok clearly my effort is wasted on you. You are not even reading what I'm saying. So just a couple quick points: 1) Just because someone discloses something doesn't make it ethical / not shilling. 2) I (and others) are not just calling Friedman a hack and leaving it at that as you seem to insist we are. We are calling him a hack and backing it up with evidence -- as I have said repeatedly, and I have pointed you to the evidence. It absolutely does have a place in rational dialogue. You pay lip service to being interested in discussion, but your behavior indicates you are not at all interested as I have attempted to engage you repeatedly and you pay it no heed whatsoever.