Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job • Hacker News Board

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#61

Post by Johngibb » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 3:51 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #31

mistercow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. That in itself is too broad a generalization though, because there are many times when mentioning someone's race/sex is, due to context, subtly racist/sexist. Generally, if you mention someones race or sex and that information is not actually relevant in any way to what you're saying, you are helping to perpetuate stereo…

Wow. The irony of discussing prejudice and in the same breath calling skinheads racists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead Please, please, please, read that page. Not only to save yourself and others the ignorance of believing skinheads are racists, but also because there's a culture and a people that will be forever denigrated because the media and parroting readers will continue to perpetuate this stereotype.

Off topic, but I find it puzzling that there's basically a handbook for a subculture trying to be different. It seems like a logical impossibility for a subculture to actually be unique and different, when there's essentially a dress code (short hair, levis, dr martens). I'm not trying to make any value judgements on the subculture, just trying to understand.

Maybe the point is that the subculture / group itself is unique, and I'm mistaking that for individual uniqueness / individuality?

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#62

Post by armored_mammal » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:01 PM UTC

blvr wrote: post #17

crag wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An the same goes for antisemitism. In America, [publicly] write anything critical of the Israeli government and you are labeled an anti-Semite.

To be honest I've seen people complain about this far more often than I've actually seen it happen.

You can't suggest that Israel is well on it's way towards complete theocracy and deeper and deeper levels of state-protected misogyny while it's also losing any semblance of functional democracy and effective long term strategies without it being suggested.

Oh, wait, you can only say that about countries like Saudi Arabia. Silly me. Because the difference between flogging women and spitting on little girls is, you know, just so insurmountably vast.

And I'm not even touching the surface of valid criticisms that people just keep quiet about rather than utter, at least in America.

The worst part of it is that these criticisms generally have nothing to do with some sort of broad notion of Judaism as a religion or as a whole, but more particularly to Israel and its domination by short-sighted zealots.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#63

Post by reply0005 » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

gyardley wrote: post #6

If the author's going to complain about hype in news coverage, perhaps he shouldn't be a leading contributor to one-sided news coverage like the Wall Street Journal's 'What They Know'. Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when it's hype the author personally disagrees with?

> ... perhaps he shouldn't be a leading contributor to one-sided news coverage ...

> ... Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when ...

In fact it is only a problem when it's from the other side; and that's an understanding that separates the people who know what they're talking about here from the people who don't.

One flaw suffices to break security. Any number of paranoid suspicions can be held without harm (...to the security).

That's why you don't cheerlead for new systems. Maybe she should've asked, oh, I don't know, any security researcher at all, besides apparently Patterson?

I don't know what Patterson said. If Patterson didn't warn her then Patterson deserves a drubbing, too.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#64

Post by fusiongyro » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:05 PM UTC

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #59

fusiongyro wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit's users have always struck me as fantastically antisemitic. I think a lot of them do it for shock laughs, but the genuine article is present as well. Saying Israel shouldn't have been born in that location isn't the same thing as saying Israel shouldn't exist, but Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification. Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved…

It's in the interests of Zionists to conflate "Jewish" and "Israeli" with "Zionist," then react to anti-Zionist sentiment as if it was anti-semitism.

Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I don't think we benefit much from reductive analyses on this issue. Israelis are certainly not politically homogenous. Some people call themselves Zionist meaning they support the settlers; others support Israel but want all of the settlers pulled out, etc. You can be Zionist and not be for any particular decision of the current Israeli government, and you can be fervently religious and not a Zionist. But let's not be dense; some anti-Zionism is exactly an expression of antisemitism. It's such a polarizing issue that both sides of the debate are inclined to overreact and overreach and wind up riding roughshod over each other's perspectives, which generates more bad feelings and makes everybody more extreme.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#65

Post by sn0rd » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:06 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #45

rickmb wrote: post #38

I still remember when Wired was relevant. You know, back in the 90s, before they declared the web dead for the first time.

You mean the Wired who has been getting tons of press for their reporting on the Apple iCloud debacle last weekend? That irrelevant Wired?

That whole Apple thing was staged. It started as a thought experiment over beers and was carried to its natural conclusion in the name of page views and awareness.

Wired has oscillated between relevant and annoying for many, many years now.

The type of attack they 'documented' is well-known and has been discussed in many circles. This is part of the reason they've had so many quotes from 'the hacker'. It's all about pushing the right buttons. Apple stuff is news.

Life is awesome. Enjoy.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#66

Post by tedunangst » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:08 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #45

rickmb wrote: post #38

I still remember when Wired was relevant. You know, back in the 90s, before they declared the web dead for the first time.

You mean the Wired who has been getting tons of press for their reporting on the Apple iCloud debacle last weekend? That irrelevant Wired?

I'm not sure I consider publishing a first person narrative reporting. If Mat had gone back to Gawker, would we be praising Gawker?

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#67

Post by pi18n » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

pi18n wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point one and the latter part of three make sense to me. Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced. I don't think males as a whole are being attacked when one gets called sexist, but I also don't know what you mean by "position in society". For the majority of men in the US that position is that they're m…

Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced. Even if they are prejudiced, it is still an ad hominem. A biased person (i.e., nearly all of us) could still make a correct argument, as could an unbiased bayesian with a strong prior. There are very narrow categories when ad hominem is justified - specifically,…

Forgive me, I meant if the criticism is in response to actual prejudice.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#68

Post by slurgfest » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:14 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #37

mistercow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. That in itself is too broad a generalization though, because there are many times when mentioning someone's race/sex is, due to context, subtly racist/sexist. Generally, if you mention someones race or sex and that information is not actually relevant in any way to what you're saying, you are helping to perpetuate stereo…

I would argue there's some work that needs to be done on the other side of the coin, too. There are too many people making money off feeling oppressed. I personally don't feel the answer is making honest people go out of their way to carefully word their sentences to avoid mentioning a characteristic of a person, I feel the answer is understanding that saying "that is a person" is nowhere near as descriptive as "a bl…

Nobody is "making money off feeling oppressed".

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#69

Post by freehunter » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

Johngibb wrote: post #61

peterwwillis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. The irony of discussing prejudice and in the same breath calling skinheads racists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead Please, please, please, read that page. Not only to save yourself and others the ignorance of believing skinheads are racists, but also because there's a culture and a people that will be forever denigrated because the media and parroting readers will continue to perpetuate this stereotype.

Off topic, but I find it puzzling that there's basically a handbook for a subculture trying to be different. It seems like a logical impossibility for a subculture to actually be unique and different, when there's essentially a dress code (short hair, levis, dr martens). I'm not trying to make any value judgements on the subculture, just trying to understand. Maybe the point is that the subculture / group itself is u…

The way I always take it when I hear someone say they're their own person and they reject society is that they're merely choosing another culture to fit into. Counter-culture is not the lack of a culture, but rather the rejection of mainstream culture and instead choosing to fit in with a different group.

Emo/scene, goth, skinhead, hipster, whatever group they're a part of, it's true that they are being an individual and being counter-culture if you take the language liberally to mean they're simply making a choice to associate with another culture. Even if it's just a phase or a fad, but those people are not similar to the rest of society. Every society has a dress code; by not being a part of the majority, they are in fact "unique" in the meaning of "not typical; unusual". Language is fun!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unique

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#70

Post by tomp » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:16 PM UTC

ajscherer wrote: post #48

tomp wrote: post #20

Being sexist is bad. Accusing a man of sexism just because he doesn't agree with a woman is worse.

This statement makes no sense to me. "Being sexist" encompases an absolutely huge range of behaviors. It could mean something as small as making a dumb assumption about what type of aesthetic preferences someone has, to something as large as making hiring decisions that can permanently stunt someone's career growth. It could even mean promulgating laws that legitimize violence against people. Sexism is thus a categor…

Mostly, I agree. Except with the part about (laws that legitimize) violence against people. In this case, the problem, IMO, is not sexism/discrimination, but violence as such.

I wrote the above mostly because I wanted to make a statement, and I wasn't in the mood for writing lengthy arguments. Also, from a purely philosophical point of view, where we analyze not the actions, but the motivations and principles behind them, the statement holds true, because accusing someone of being sexist is both sexism (belief that people of different sex differ in more than their most basic biology (which they maybe do, but that shouldn't be generalized)), and ad-hominem, which is (philosophically) worse than being just sexist.