4 ms·

You don't want to hold up the author as intellectually honest. He sneaks in a propaganda organ on par with the Party from 1984 as one of his sources without adm

You don't want to hold up the author as intellectually honest. He sneaks in a propaganda organ on par with the Party from 1984 as one of his sources without admitting that is what they are. :/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ runs some of what he is using as "evidence". They are pretty clearly a political organization with an agenda. If the author wasn't in the same vein, he'd have disclosed that or used someone else. --- EDIT: For example this guy: > Your post feels eerily reminiscent of pro-industry conservatives pointing at snow and saying,"Global Climate Shift is a fallacy!" Maybe he used a poor source (though i think you'd have a hard time finding any data aggregator that does not have some political lean), but amongst how many credible ones? In my industry, the last day on the job is all that matters. On a 50 day job, 49 perfects mean nothing if the one bad one is on the last day. I always hated this; IMO it has no place in logical debate/discussion. Since I'm rate limited and people are making various claims I'm going to point this out: It isn't a "data aggregator with a political leaning", it is literally owned by an institution founded exclusively to further a single political party. http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81 http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=... > Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition, publicly voicing their dissent over the consensus regarding climate change. - See more at: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81#sthash.9OlZIp6f.dpuf http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=... If you actually look at the list you find a bunch of people like these folks: > Donald R. Buechel, MD, Walter R. Buerger, MD They strongly imply its "climate scientists" when in reality its anyone they can claim has a Phd. These are trained liars who lie through omission regularly. That isn't anywhere near "the same" as a newspaper with a political leaning. To hold them up as a source when you claim you are being intellectually honest [and not disclosing what they are] really is dishonest.

evincarofautumn 12y ago
Fair enough. I (largely) agree with the article as written and know nothing about the author or their views beyond this.
zxcvcxz 12y ago
Well every feminist I've ever gotten into a debate with eventually links to the "geek feminism wiki" as some kind of irrefutable source of proof of misogyny when in reality anyone and everyone can edit it. This article isn't nearly as bad as the "pro-feminist" stuff I see all the time.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  I honestly don't see any pro-feminist articles that are as bad as this article with the exception of the Rolling Stone article he mentioned. I've never even heard of the "geek feminism wiki". So I think we have different experiences. But regardless, I'm just pointing out the author's biases since he didn't disclose them. EDIT due to rate limit: > How can you say that? So much of the prose in the article is caveats, disclaimers, and admissions of existence. Indeed, these days one cannot state an opinion with out declaring political ties, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, shoe size and height. If this trend continues, disclaimers will make up 90% of any blogpost. If he had admitted/disclosed the nature of the one source you have mentioned, would your opinion of the article change? [1] Republican Source That isn't a huge change in the article. Its basically three words. > If he had admitted/disclosed the nature of the one source you have mentioned, would your opinion of the article change? I'd have believed some of the claims he made about caring about intellectual honesty. So yes, it would have changed my opinion. Blatant hypocrisy in the very article lambasting "the other side" for engaging in the behavior you are engaging in pretty much places you in category of "Oh, another fundamentally dishonest opinion by a biased source" in my mind.
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
    How can you say that? So much of the prose in the article is caveats, disclaimers, and admissions of existence. Indeed, these days one cannot state an opinion with out declaring political ties, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, shoe size and height. If this trend continues, disclaimers will make up 90% of any blogpost. If he had admitted/disclosed the nature of the one source you have mentioned, would your opinion of the article change?
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
Karunamon 12y ago
I'd argue that this is not an instance of dishonesty. The ideologies of groups like the one you linked to, despite being radical, are quickly becoming mainstream. You've got an author in a mainstream newspaper who can write that due process shouldn't exist, and this is taken seriously in the current political climate. You've got an ideology that asserts your identity is more important than the content of your character, and this is taken seriously. You've got an ideology that states literally any dissent is at least bad, at most hateful, and this is taken seriously. The example you link to is not dishonest because it is not meant to be an example of "everyday" thoughts by everyday people, it is meant to be an example of radicalism becoming mainstream.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  Relying on a source that is basically a propaganda organ of the hard right elements of the Republican party without disclosing that is what it is falls under "dishonesty" when attempting to use it as a factual representation of reality. It is IDENTICAL to me going to a SJW and using her as a source without fact checking it. Or the Rolling Stone article. He literally did that. It isn't a fact you can wave away and say "Well, conservative republican views are becoming mainstream so its okay." All he had to do was add a footnote saying "Hey look at these Republican political operatives".
- Joeboy 12y ago
  > You've got an author in a mainstream newspaper who can write that due process shouldn't exist Maybe you do, somewhere, but the author of the cited article makes it clear she isn't arguing for a change to the legal system: "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system."
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but I think everything you've written is utterly backwards. Nobody outside the internet takes seriously the ideas that due process shouldn't exist, or that identity is more important than actions, or that dissent is morally harmful. And "Conservatism" in its hard-right, Koch-and-Paul incarnation is already mainstream. It has been mainstream ever since Ronald Reagan -- not just mainstream but the mainstream, in the sense that it keeps winning elections, no matter what the San Francisco digerati think of it. (And for reference, I'm very hard-left. I don't like that the Republican Party wins elections; I just also don't pretend it doesn't happen and then claim the Tumblr Left is somehow mainstream!)
classicsnoot 12y ago
Your post feels eerily reminiscent of pro-industry conservatives pointing at snow and saying,"Global Climate Shift is a fallacy!" Maybe he used a poor source (though i think you'd have a hard time finding any data aggregator that does not have some political lean), but amongst how many credible ones? In my industry, the last day on the job is all that matters. On a 50 day job, 49 perfects mean nothing if the one bad one is on the last day. I always hated this; IMO it has no place in logical debate/discussion.
classicsnoot 12y ago
...ok. The first carrot quote is me (Classicsnoot, by the by, and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance!). The other two are not, so in essence you have misquoted me. I do not think this invalidates all of your posts as I choose to see it as an honest mistake. Second, Climate Shift is occurring and it, IMO, is on par with the geological/climatological history of our planet as we understand it. Does human activity exacerbate this trend? Who cares? We cannot stop it. We will either evolve to adapt or join the dinosaurs. Arguing about the depth and source of the river is a bit silly as the waterfall is approaching.
atlantic 12y ago
Maybe he has an agenda, maybe not; it's not important. His arguments stand or fall on their own merit. You haven't engaged with his argumentation; your simply trying to discredit him.
eqdw 12y ago
What sources are you talking about? I just did a quick once-over and I couldn't find any links to the leadership institute

evincarofautumn 12y ago

Fair enough. I (largely) agree with the article as written and know nothing about the author or their views beyond this.

zxcvcxz 12y ago

Well every feminist I've ever gotten into a debate with eventually links to the "geek feminism wiki" as some kind of irrefutable source of proof of misogyny when in reality anyone and everyone can edit it. This article isn't nearly as bad as the "pro-feminist" stuff I see all the time.

fweespeech 12y ago
I honestly don't see any pro-feminist articles that are as bad as this article with the exception of the Rolling Stone article he mentioned. I've never even heard of the "geek feminism wiki". So I think we have different experiences. But regardless, I'm just pointing out the author's biases since he didn't disclose them. EDIT due to rate limit: > How can you say that? So much of the prose in the article is caveats, disclaimers, and admissions of existence. Indeed, these days one cannot state an opinion with out declaring political ties, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, shoe size and height. If this trend continues, disclaimers will make up 90% of any blogpost. If he had admitted/disclosed the nature of the one source you have mentioned, would your opinion of the article change? [1] Republican Source That isn't a huge change in the article. Its basically three words. > If he had admitted/disclosed the nature of the one source you have mentioned, would your opinion of the article change? I'd have believed some of the claims he made about caring about intellectual honesty. So yes, it would have changed my opinion. Blatant hypocrisy in the very article lambasting "the other side" for engaging in the behavior you are engaging in pretty much places you in category of "Oh, another fundamentally dishonest opinion by a biased source" in my mind.
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  How can you say that? So much of the prose in the article is caveats, disclaimers, and admissions of existence. Indeed, these days one cannot state an opinion with out declaring political ties, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, shoe size and height. If this trend continues, disclaimers will make up 90% of any blogpost. If he had admitted/disclosed the nature of the one source you have mentioned, would your opinion of the article change?
- classicsnoot 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

I'd argue that this is not an instance of dishonesty. The ideologies of groups like the one you linked to, despite being radical, are quickly becoming mainstream. You've got an author in a mainstream newspaper who can write that due process shouldn't exist, and this is taken seriously in the current political climate. You've got an ideology that asserts your identity is more important than the content of your character, and this is taken seriously. You've got an ideology that states literally any dissent is at least bad, at most hateful, and this is taken seriously. The example you link to is not dishonest because it is not meant to be an example of "everyday" thoughts by everyday people, it is meant to be an example of radicalism becoming mainstream.

fweespeech 12y ago
Relying on a source that is basically a propaganda organ of the hard right elements of the Republican party without disclosing that is what it is falls under "dishonesty" when attempting to use it as a factual representation of reality. It is IDENTICAL to me going to a SJW and using her as a source without fact checking it. Or the Rolling Stone article. He literally did that. It isn't a fact you can wave away and say "Well, conservative republican views are becoming mainstream so its okay." All he had to do was add a footnote saying "Hey look at these Republican political operatives".
Joeboy 12y ago
> You've got an author in a mainstream newspaper who can write that due process shouldn't exist Maybe you do, somewhere, but the author of the cited article makes it clear she isn't arguing for a change to the legal system: "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system."
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
I'm sorry, but I think everything you've written is utterly backwards. Nobody outside the internet takes seriously the ideas that due process shouldn't exist, or that identity is more important than actions, or that dissent is morally harmful. And "Conservatism" in its hard-right, Koch-and-Paul incarnation is already mainstream. It has been mainstream ever since Ronald Reagan -- not just mainstream but the mainstream, in the sense that it keeps winning elections, no matter what the San Francisco digerati think of it. (And for reference, I'm very hard-left. I don't like that the Republican Party wins elections; I just also don't pretend it doesn't happen and then claim the Tumblr Left is somehow mainstream!)

classicsnoot 12y ago

Your post feels eerily reminiscent of pro-industry conservatives pointing at snow and saying,"Global Climate Shift is a fallacy!" Maybe he used a poor source (though i think you'd have a hard time finding any data aggregator that does not have some political lean), but amongst how many credible ones? In my industry, the last day on the job is all that matters. On a 50 day job, 49 perfects mean nothing if the one bad one is on the last day. I always hated this; IMO it has no place in logical debate/discussion.

classicsnoot 12y ago

...ok. The first carrot quote is me (Classicsnoot, by the by, and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance!). The other two are not, so in essence you have misquoted me. I do not think this invalidates all of your posts as I choose to see it as an honest mistake. Second, Climate Shift is occurring and it, IMO, is on par with the geological/climatological history of our planet as we understand it. Does human activity exacerbate this trend? Who cares? We cannot stop it. We will either evolve to adapt or join the dinosaurs. Arguing about the depth and source of the river is a bit silly as the waterfall is approaching.

atlantic 12y ago

Maybe he has an agenda, maybe not; it's not important. His arguments stand or fall on their own merit. You haven't engaged with his argumentation; your simply trying to discredit him.

eqdw 12y ago

What sources are you talking about? I just did a quick once-over and I couldn't find any links to the leadership institute