5 ms·
HN is solely for venture capitalism via phone and webapps, thanks. And maybe Gladwell-esque light stories suitable for our Powerpoint pitch.
by trentlott 13y ago
HN is solely for venture capitalism via phone and webapps, thanks.
And maybe Gladwell-esque light stories suitable for our Powerpoint pitch.
- codezero 13y agoThank you, Poe's Law.
- cam_l 13y agoI would like to make an addendum to Poe's Law - a formal accepted response / solution to the dilemma. An extremist point of view should always be taken as sarcasm (or more accurately, as pisstake). Extremism should be derided as facile and ridiculous, but kind of funny - just like sarcasm. It is absurd whether the proponent regards it as such or not and as such should be treated with the sense of humour it deserves.
- steveklabnik 13y ago"Extremist" points of view are relative to the audience. At one point, scientists were 'extremists.'
- interstitial 13y agoAnd generalities are relative to the generalist.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- cam_l 13y agoThis is not about truth or absolutes, relativity is just not relevant. It is simply that where the line between sarcastic or extremist points of view is indeterminable, they necessarily tend toward the facile and/or ridiculous - and the correct response in this case is humour. In regards to your example, the broad assumption that they ever were regarded as such is predicated on the fact that they tend to present their findings before their research. Extreme findings, if they are facile, ridiculous, and also kind of funny, deserve derision in the absence of research to back them. Once the research is presented, the minutiae of proof of cause and effect shifts the relative position of the audience to occupy previously questionable ground. Wow, I obviously put way too much thought into what was a just stray musing ;)
- codezero 13y agoDerision is an alternative form of extremism. If the target is an extremist, they will use it as an example of their point of view being dismissed and suppressed. If they are being sarcastic, it will rile them into persisting.
- cam_l 13y agoHa, I think I actually disagree with each of your points individually. But it is a persuasive argument, because the idea is always only as good as the outcome. Derision is not extremism, that is to bastardise the meaning of both words. If the target is an extremist, I absolutely think their view should be dismissed and suppressed. However making fun of their point of view - particularly in mistaking their argument for obvious trolling/sarcasm - will render it unusable or counter-productive as evidence of suppression. As to the last point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2QrWzsfghA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2QrWzsfghA
- codezero 13y agoExtremist is a relative definition though. When reacting to people and teasing/making fun of them or deriding them, keep this in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport's_Scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport's_Scale
- cam_l 13y agoNot deriding them, just deriding a particular point of view.. and doing so with humour. See above re: relativity.. plus I would note that the very definition of extremism means it is only relative insofar as it is a long way from everything else, which pretty much rules out edge cases. Allport's Scale was new to me, thanks!
- codezero 13y agoAh, I advocate deriding content, but it's very easy to slip from content to the person :)