4 ms·

You don't do yourself much favor in this discussion when you post links to returnofkings.com or avoiceformen.com :-)

by valas 12y ago

imanaccount247 12y ago
The source of a fact does not matter. Your post is the very definition of ad-hominem.
- eropple 12y ago
  I don't think you know how things...like...work. Being an ad hominem argument and being accurate are not disjoint sets. You don't just get to blow the whistle and say "AD HOMINEM, ARGUMENT GOES TO THE RECEIVING TEAM!". It's not even an ad hominem, though, because the credibility of your sources is at the core of your argument. returnofkings and avoiceformen have a storied and well-covered history of being astonishing shitheads towards women and doing everything in their (meager, thankfully) power to turn the clock back to 1950 or thereabouts. They have an inherent bias, and a real real disgusting one, that makes them immediately incredible. It's like citing Andrew Wakefield on autism--you aren't entitled to the respect of having an argument when you don't have an argument based on reality. There isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link parade to argue about. It's prima facie nonsense being peddled by people with much, much more of an axe to grind than anyone on the "other side" that you (strangely) fear; there's no serious coverage of this sordid stain on a hobby of mine that's pro-#GG except from people whose entire worldview is predicated on being anti-women. And you know it, which is why you would rather blow the whistle and hope the ref stops the fight because--gasp!--somebody used a fallacy.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    You are upset for no reason, and are being abusive as a result of your anger. Please calm down and try to be a little more constructive. I did not post those links, I simply pointed out that the source of a fact does not matter. You did not say "those facts are wrong because evidence", you said "those facts are wrong because I don't like who is saying them". That is the very definition of ad-hominem. I did not claim to win any argument, I pointed out that you did not make an argument. Your response had negative value. If you want to demonstrate that some claims are incorrect, then do so.
    - eropple 12y ago
      When you post facts, and not innuendos posing as facts, this self-righteous spiel might have some value. But my experience with goobergate has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Colbert's truthiness is in full effect up in hurr.
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        >shitposting is fine if I don't like you Yeah, that really isn't how it works. I know it is hard to admit when you are emotionally invested in a mistake, but I believe you are better than that.
        eropple 12y ago
        Your code switching needs work. But we knew you were a sock already.
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please make an effort.
  - EvenThisAcronym 12y ago
    >there isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link... Why, exactly, did you use this particular choice of words?
    - eropple 12y ago
      Because I felt like reaching deep and verbalizing the contempt I have for this brutally disingenuous crowd. (And before you step up about oh, no, it's not disingenuous at all, answer yourself this: why's everyone making a big stink about Nathan Grayson at Kotaku and not, oh, the lack of a wall between marketing/ad-sales and content generation at IGN?)
      - orionblastar 12y ago
        The whole thing is the gaming industry is corrupt. People can pay for good reviews or have sexual relations with the reviewer in exchange for a good review. It doesn't matter if one is male or female that does those sorts of things. But when one gets caught he or she can fake threats with Twitter accounts to cover it up. For some reason most of the people doing this are feminists, I don't know why, nor do I know why the mainstream media and news media won't cover it. Why is it a non-story if a feminist does bad things for a good review and when caught does a Twitter hoax, and then rewarded for it? Sure those sites might be crappy towards women, but they uncovered some facts about the hoaxes. Something the news media refuses to do, which is why those websites report on it. I wish the news media would investigate it and find out if it is a hoax or not. But taking a picture of a Tweet 12 minutes after it happened is very suspicious, esp when that Tweet is deleted in less than half an hour and the account gets deleted as well. So nobody else can see it or what IP it got posted from.

You don't do yourself much favor in this discussion when you post links to returnofkings.com or avoiceformen.com :-)

by valas 12y ago

You don't do yourself much favor in this discussion when you post links to returnofkings.com or avoiceformen.com :-)

imanaccount247 12y ago

The source of a fact does not matter. Your post is the very definition of ad-hominem.

eropple 12y ago
I don't think you know how things...like...work. Being an ad hominem argument and being accurate are not disjoint sets. You don't just get to blow the whistle and say "AD HOMINEM, ARGUMENT GOES TO THE RECEIVING TEAM!". It's not even an ad hominem, though, because the credibility of your sources is at the core of your argument. returnofkings and avoiceformen have a storied and well-covered history of being astonishing shitheads towards women and doing everything in their (meager, thankfully) power to turn the clock back to 1950 or thereabouts. They have an inherent bias, and a real real disgusting one, that makes them immediately incredible. It's like citing Andrew Wakefield on autism--you aren't entitled to the respect of having an argument when you don't have an argument based on reality. There isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link parade to argue about. It's prima facie nonsense being peddled by people with much, much more of an axe to grind than anyone on the "other side" that you (strangely) fear; there's no serious coverage of this sordid stain on a hobby of mine that's pro-#GG except from people whose entire worldview is predicated on being anti-women. And you know it, which is why you would rather blow the whistle and hope the ref stops the fight because--gasp!--somebody used a fallacy.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  You are upset for no reason, and are being abusive as a result of your anger. Please calm down and try to be a little more constructive. I did not post those links, I simply pointed out that the source of a fact does not matter. You did not say "those facts are wrong because evidence", you said "those facts are wrong because I don't like who is saying them". That is the very definition of ad-hominem. I did not claim to win any argument, I pointed out that you did not make an argument. Your response had negative value. If you want to demonstrate that some claims are incorrect, then do so.
  - eropple 12y ago
    When you post facts, and not innuendos posing as facts, this self-righteous spiel might have some value. But my experience with goobergate has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Colbert's truthiness is in full effect up in hurr.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      >shitposting is fine if I don't like you Yeah, that really isn't how it works. I know it is hard to admit when you are emotionally invested in a mistake, but I believe you are better than that.
      - eropple 12y ago
        Your code switching needs work. But we knew you were a sock already.
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please make an effort.
- EvenThisAcronym 12y ago
  >there isn't enough there to the spittle-flecked, cheeto-dusting link... Why, exactly, did you use this particular choice of words?
  - eropple 12y ago
    Because I felt like reaching deep and verbalizing the contempt I have for this brutally disingenuous crowd. (And before you step up about oh, no, it's not disingenuous at all, answer yourself this: why's everyone making a big stink about Nathan Grayson at Kotaku and not, oh, the lack of a wall between marketing/ad-sales and content generation at IGN?)
    - orionblastar 12y ago
      The whole thing is the gaming industry is corrupt. People can pay for good reviews or have sexual relations with the reviewer in exchange for a good review. It doesn't matter if one is male or female that does those sorts of things. But when one gets caught he or she can fake threats with Twitter accounts to cover it up. For some reason most of the people doing this are feminists, I don't know why, nor do I know why the mainstream media and news media won't cover it. Why is it a non-story if a feminist does bad things for a good review and when caught does a Twitter hoax, and then rewarded for it? Sure those sites might be crappy towards women, but they uncovered some facts about the hoaxes. Something the news media refuses to do, which is why those websites report on it. I wish the news media would investigate it and find out if it is a hoax or not. But taking a picture of a Tweet 12 minutes after it happened is very suspicious, esp when that Tweet is deleted in less than half an hour and the account gets deleted as well. So nobody else can see it or what IP it got posted from.