3 ms·

There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit

There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit any logical analyses, nor any reminders to remain analytical.

vacri 11y ago
> So if you feel up to it, please do so. Uh, I just did. Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
- axlprose 11y ago
  Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip. Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
  - vacri 11y ago
    "this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere" It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate. I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      The comment was intending to cast doubt about a critique of the news article posted here. This article has nothing to do with gamergate, and the critique had nothing to do with gamergate. The comment could've elaborated on the parallels and presented a thoughtful analysis about that, but that's not what was posted. Thus if there was no blatant relationship between these events, and none were elaborated or clearly argued for, then what is the rule for applying this whole "integrity in journalism argument" => "gamergate" => BS chain of logic? If there is none, then by definition, it can be applied anywhere. So I don't see how my comment is logically invalid in pointing this out. I also hope you realize that your comparison between this article and gamergate is about as valid as my original one was to orwell & huxley; i.e. it's pointless to just point out and insinuate some kind of similarity unless you clarify what it is you're actually trying to argue. Pointing things out like that without explanation just gives the impression that you want to throw the negative connotations of events like gamergate (or the holocaust for hitler analogies) onto unrelated arguments to silence them. And finally, the problems with media run farther than just the bigtime moguls out there like Murdoch, and as I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's a direct byproduct of the influence social media has had, and this is more thoroughly elaborated on in the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying". That book came out well before gamergate even happened, yet random questions about the dubious journalistic practices this book outlines are all somehow related to that silly gamergate incident?
      - vacri 11y ago
        No, just because the GP didn't elaborate reasons for the comparison does not make your strawman not a strawman. You put words into badsock's mouth, and then applied shame for things badsock didn't say. "This reminds me of gamergate" is not "any criticism of any journalistic ethics anywhere", period. Similarly, my 'there are parallels' and your 'huxley and orwell' aren't the same. You say that it's pointless to present without clarification, yet I presented the comment dispassionately and gave some counter-examples to clarify. Your huxley/orwell comment was a snarky comment, based off a strawman. You're also confusing my point with the GP's. While I agree with the GP, my point is not that this event is reminiscent of gamergate, but that you're behaving hypocritically.

vacri 11y ago

> So if you feel up to it, please do so. Uh, I just did. Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.

axlprose 11y ago
Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip. Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
- vacri 11y ago
  "this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere" It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate. I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    The comment was intending to cast doubt about a critique of the news article posted here. This article has nothing to do with gamergate, and the critique had nothing to do with gamergate. The comment could've elaborated on the parallels and presented a thoughtful analysis about that, but that's not what was posted. Thus if there was no blatant relationship between these events, and none were elaborated or clearly argued for, then what is the rule for applying this whole "integrity in journalism argument" => "gamergate" => BS chain of logic? If there is none, then by definition, it can be applied anywhere. So I don't see how my comment is logically invalid in pointing this out. I also hope you realize that your comparison between this article and gamergate is about as valid as my original one was to orwell & huxley; i.e. it's pointless to just point out and insinuate some kind of similarity unless you clarify what it is you're actually trying to argue. Pointing things out like that without explanation just gives the impression that you want to throw the negative connotations of events like gamergate (or the holocaust for hitler analogies) onto unrelated arguments to silence them. And finally, the problems with media run farther than just the bigtime moguls out there like Murdoch, and as I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's a direct byproduct of the influence social media has had, and this is more thoroughly elaborated on in the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying". That book came out well before gamergate even happened, yet random questions about the dubious journalistic practices this book outlines are all somehow related to that silly gamergate incident?
    - vacri 11y ago
      No, just because the GP didn't elaborate reasons for the comparison does not make your strawman not a strawman. You put words into badsock's mouth, and then applied shame for things badsock didn't say. "This reminds me of gamergate" is not "any criticism of any journalistic ethics anywhere", period. Similarly, my 'there are parallels' and your 'huxley and orwell' aren't the same. You say that it's pointless to present without clarification, yet I presented the comment dispassionately and gave some counter-examples to clarify. Your huxley/orwell comment was a snarky comment, based off a strawman. You're also confusing my point with the GP's. While I agree with the GP, my point is not that this event is reminiscent of gamergate, but that you're behaving hypocritically.