5 ms·

My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of atta

My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points. I attempted to prove the futility of attacking the arguments by showing that they have been clearly countered before while failing to budge this account from their fixed talking points.

dang 12y ago
> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. If you suspect accounts of not being here for legitimate purposes you are welcome to email your suspicions to us at hn@ycombinator.com. But it's not ok to make accusations of astroturfing in HN threads. The degradation it causes to the discourse is obvious from the current discussion alone: wherever it comes up turns into a toxic waste pond. Personally accusing paulhauggis of being a shill just because you don't like his politics is one of the worst examples I've seen. I think you owe him an apology. Even if you're right that someone refuses to change his mind when shown superior arguments, the only thing that entitles you to accuse them of is human nature.
Alupis 12y ago
> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people like to think (they are, after all, the news network with the most viewership and highest ratings year after year). Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument. And clearly someone who's invested enough time into getting 1K+ upvotes isn't a drive-by-night account. I get suspicious when new accounts post that were created on or around when the article was posted, and/or accounts with very long account history but almost no comments and no upvotes (why go 500 days with no comment but now you post?).
- chetanahuja 12y ago
  "For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments." Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you. Conversely, has anyone managed to change your mind here in this thread? Probably not... The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Some debate for sport/fun, others to make a point. In the end a good debate serves to strengthen one's own ideals via plugging of logic holes poked by the opposite party. Occasionally someone may change their viewpoint -- but only someone with a very strong ego would believe their sole argument was so compelling... If you surround yourself in an echo chamber, it's easy to believe your viewpoint is the only correct one.
    - loqi 12y ago
      > The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Applied to both parties in the argument, yes it is. Argument is digging for truth. The most productive outcome is for some or all of the parties involved shift their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality. Just to clarify - when you argue, are you attempting to present the actual reasons you believe your point to be true? If not, then you are arguing in bad faith, and contributing heat to the discussion rather than light. If you really are arguing in good faith, then it's just plain crazy to strengthen your position upon being confronted with flaws in your reasoning. > Some debate for sport/fun In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".
      - Alupis 12y ago
        > > Some debate for sport/fun > In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling". That's not always true. Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in? In addition, a common debate preparation tactic for "serious" debates is often to argue from the opponent's side. This forces one to better understand the opposition's stance, better prepare for common responses and assertions, and discover potential logic flaws in one's own position.
droopybuns 12y ago
Let's turn the tables- I'm going to apply a hypothetical: I find all of your arguments to be talking points. How can we possibly have a reasonable dialog? I have just insulted you by explicitly stating that you are insincere in your position. This is how you're treating everyone who disagrees with you. It is utterly unproductive. You are executing a Denial of Service attack on any reasonable dialog.
- chetanahuja 12y ago
  No. Not everybody. Go see my comment history over a long period of time. On this particular topic, with a couple of particular accounts, I have strong reason to believe that cogent arguments are futile. I'm openly assuming such accounts to be at best ideologically driven, rationally blind or at worst astro-turfers. And I'm openly refusing to engage in rational argument with these accounts. paulhauggis is one such account
  - droopybuns 12y ago
    What is the point of this then? Part of the value of hackernews is that you get informed people presenting ideas that you might not otherwise have considered. Attacking someone because they violate orthodoxy is something that is lampooned in this comic. YOU'RE THE GUY IN THE COMIC! http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
- crazy1van 12y ago
  > I find all of your arguments to be talking points. Please define "talking points"... I find it often means an often repeated argument that my side doesn't agree with.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The same arguments being repeated again and again, usually by multiple different people (almost as if the arguments have been disseminated from the same source), with any rebuttals or addressing of those points by people opposing the central point being ignored or not addressed in good faith. See upthread for an example of this.
baddox 12y ago
It doesn't matter whether a contributor intends his argument to be "legitimate" or not. The validity of an argument is completely independent of the presenter of that argument.

dang 12y ago

> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. If you suspect accounts of not being here for legitimate purposes you are welcome to email your suspicions to us at hn@ycombinator.com. But it's not ok to make accusations of astroturfing in HN threads. The degradation it causes to the discourse is obvious from the current discussion alone: wherever it comes up turns into a toxic waste pond. Personally accusing paulhauggis of being a shill just because you don't like his politics is one of the worst examples I've seen. I think you owe him an apology. Even if you're right that someone refuses to change his mind when shown superior arguments, the only thing that entitles you to accuse them of is human nature.

Alupis 12y ago

> My thesis is that these accounts are not here for legitimate argument. They are here to spread FUD via talking points If you feel anyone's opinion that isn't your own is somehow FUD, that's a problem. For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments. I also happen to believe Fox News isn't as terrible as a lot of people like to think (they are, after all, the news network with the most viewership and highest ratings year after year). Point being, you shouldn't attack individuals because they don't agree with you (or the popular opinion). You should attack their argument. And clearly someone who's invested enough time into getting 1K+ upvotes isn't a drive-by-night account. I get suspicious when new accounts post that were created on or around when the article was posted, and/or accounts with very long account history but almost no comments and no upvotes (why go 500 days with no comment but now you post?).

chetanahuja 12y ago
"For example, you are unlikely to change my viewpoint or opinion on a great number of things, even through well thought-out and concise arguments." Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you. Conversely, has anyone managed to change your mind here in this thread? Probably not... The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Some debate for sport/fun, others to make a point. In the end a good debate serves to strengthen one's own ideals via plugging of logic holes poked by the opposite party. Occasionally someone may change their viewpoint -- but only someone with a very strong ego would believe their sole argument was so compelling... If you surround yourself in an echo chamber, it's easy to believe your viewpoint is the only correct one.
  - loqi 12y ago
    > The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion. Applied to both parties in the argument, yes it is. Argument is digging for truth. The most productive outcome is for some or all of the parties involved shift their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality. Just to clarify - when you argue, are you attempting to present the actual reasons you believe your point to be true? If not, then you are arguing in bad faith, and contributing heat to the discussion rather than light. If you really are arguing in good faith, then it's just plain crazy to strengthen your position upon being confronted with flaws in your reasoning. > Some debate for sport/fun In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".
    - Alupis 12y ago
      > > Some debate for sport/fun > In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling". That's not always true. Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in? In addition, a common debate preparation tactic for "serious" debates is often to argue from the opponent's side. This forces one to better understand the opposition's stance, better prepare for common responses and assertions, and discover potential logic flaws in one's own position.

droopybuns 12y ago

Let's turn the tables- I'm going to apply a hypothetical: I find all of your arguments to be talking points. How can we possibly have a reasonable dialog? I have just insulted you by explicitly stating that you are insincere in your position. This is how you're treating everyone who disagrees with you. It is utterly unproductive. You are executing a Denial of Service attack on any reasonable dialog.

chetanahuja 12y ago
No. Not everybody. Go see my comment history over a long period of time. On this particular topic, with a couple of particular accounts, I have strong reason to believe that cogent arguments are futile. I'm openly assuming such accounts to be at best ideologically driven, rationally blind or at worst astro-turfers. And I'm openly refusing to engage in rational argument with these accounts. paulhauggis is one such account
- droopybuns 12y ago
  What is the point of this then? Part of the value of hackernews is that you get informed people presenting ideas that you might not otherwise have considered. Attacking someone because they violate orthodoxy is something that is lampooned in this comic. YOU'RE THE GUY IN THE COMIC! http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
crazy1van 12y ago
> I find all of your arguments to be talking points. Please define "talking points"... I find it often means an often repeated argument that my side doesn't agree with.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  The same arguments being repeated again and again, usually by multiple different people (almost as if the arguments have been disseminated from the same source), with any rebuttals or addressing of those points by people opposing the central point being ignored or not addressed in good faith. See upthread for an example of this.

baddox 12y ago

It doesn't matter whether a contributor intends his argument to be "legitimate" or not. The validity of an argument is completely independent of the presenter of that argument.