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

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#71

Post by AkThhhpppt » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:20 PM UTC

fusiongyro wrote: post #64

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fervent…

You want pithiness AND accuracy? What next, blood? :-) But yes, you're entirely correct.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#72

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:21 PM UTC

crag wrote: post #12

rimantas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly > undermines genuine claims of sexism. The same goes for rasism. We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. Too bad.

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

Criticizing the actions of any government is what it is, but many critics of Israel go so far as to say there should be no Jewish state, which in effect means the Jews should be a people without a homeland, forever vulnerable to extermination by the Gentiles they are forced to live amongst as an eternal minority. That alone is suspicious as it carries the shadow of antisemitism, but once you throw in explicit support for groups like Hamas, the picture becomes clearer.

Except for a brief moment of shame after World War II, the general attitude of the West has always been antisemitic. Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government should have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#73

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:25 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.

Zionism--i.e. the settlement and defense of Israel itself--is the Jews' best hope to protect themselves from extermination. You're damn right it's suspicious to criticize that concept.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#74

Post by peterwwillis » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:26 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…

Skinhead culture is about embracing things you do like, not rejecting the things you don't. They're not trying to be different. They just like the music and the clothes and the attitude, as well as the extended family nature of the people who identify as they do. I'm pretty sure everyone who associates themselves with any label is doing the same thing.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#75

Post by slurgfest » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:28 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #36

mistercow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apologies. I should have specified "neo-Nazi skinheads". This is not in the same category as racial or gender prejudice, however. It is simply a matter of mislabeling.

No apology necessary. It's just incredibly frustrating that the label has been taken to such an extreme to the point that a whole subculture is guilty by association. It's definitely not the same thing as racial or gender prejudice, but it can be just as damaging to the people who live under the label and deal with its unintended consequences (like getting beaten outside a club for shaving your head and wearing doc m…

Except in this case you are talking about a subculture which is preoccupied with gratuitous violence (even outside the context of racism). That makes it not very comparable to race, gender or geeks.

Beating people is obviously not nice. But if you get beaten outside a club for intentionally dressing the same way as a subculture which is historically well-known for beating up people outside clubs for fun (or being a foreigner, or being gay, or being a hippie, or being Republican...) then that might be unfair, but it isn't at all surprising. And it doesn't even hold a candle to being attacked for things over which you have no control, like being a foreigner. It's not even related.

The comparison of this to racism and sexism is a ridiculous excess of political correctness on behalf of people who don't need it. Just stop. Nobody has an obligation to preserve the delicate feelings of skinheads from the consequences of the skinhead cultural obsession with violence.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#76

Post by slurgfest » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:32 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…

Some subcultures are non-conformist, and are very positive toward other subcultures. This is not one of those. The dress code is something skinheads judge each other on. It also advertises to others that you are a tough, aggressive person and that you are aligned with whites, or the working class, or whatever.

If you just went around in flip-flops and cargo shorts there is no way anybody would know that you identify as a skinhead, or know they should fear you.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#77

Post by AkThhhpppt » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:34 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #73

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zionism--i.e. the settlement and defense of Israel itself--is the Jews' best hope to protect themselves from extermination. You're damn right it's suspicious to criticize that concept.

It's the expansionism, and the dispossession of Palestinians that requires, that gets all activists of my acquaintance _really_ het up. Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank, outside the Wall? Are they "correct" according to Zionism?

Because if yes, Zionism is an ideology in favour of ethnic cleansing, which is an uncomfortable spot to sit...

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#78

Post by nirvana » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:47 PM UTC

synth wrote: post #15

nopassrecover wrote: post #4

Without a lot of prior context, this seems like a clear-headed rebuttal to an otherwise pretty low ad hominem attack. On a specific note, to characterise someone as sexist because they disagree with someone who happens to be a woman is in my opinion itself one of the most egregious examples of both sexism (for reasons I'll detail) and libel (for the damaging political and social impact of being branded with such a la…

Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole? Really? Try swapping sexism with homophobia or racism, and see how ridiculous you sound. (Note: I agree with your first assertion.) First, throwing the term 'racist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of racism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as racist, but…

Swap it for racism? Ok.

A clear example of what he's talking about can be observed in the tendency particularly during the "Town Hall" meetings, and thruout the rest of the Obamacare debate to characterize anyone who disagreed with that piece of legislation as "Racist" for disagreeing with Obama. Because Obama is "Black", and those using this tactic agreed with him, so rather than respond to the points, they felt comfortable accusing their opponents of dirty things.

It is very much like calling anyone who advocates gay marriage a "pedophile". Using a highly emotionally charged negative word to slander someone to avoid engaging them in debate.

It got to the point where one day I saw MSNBC focusing on the gun a guy had slung over his back at a protest which also had a large 2nd ammendment component, with the MSNBC commentators talking about how this guy was making a threat to kill the president (because the president was arriving in that location later) and how it just showed the "angry violent racist attitude".

The video in question focused on the gun, so the commentator didn't realize the guy she was talking about was actually black.

The "You're a sexist/racists/homophobe" if you disagree with a "female/black/gay" is a very popular tactic these days.

It is easy to evade legitimate debate by simply asserting that "the TEA Party is racist" and things like that.

It also shows that many people think that simply because of someone's skin color, gender or sexual orientation is not that of a "minority" that their opinions are groundless and based in ignorance.

>being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.

Let me change contexts so you can see how this comes off: "Being made to feel guilty for your molestation of children isn't an attack, its a reminder of your crime." This is what someone in your position would say to rationalize calling a gay marriage supporter a pedophile.

First off, this seems an admission that the goal of this tactic is to make someone feel uncomfortable, as if they should be guilty for being part of what you consider a majority. Which means you're speaking to the person, and this is ad hominem. "You're white so you don't know what you're talking about" is a pure form of ad hominem.

Secondly, unless the issue is intrinsically related to the issue of race/gender/orientation it is an evasion of the topic at hand.

I don't see how cryptography is intrinsically racial, sexist or related to sexual orientation at all.

This line of attack is not a "reminder" it is an evasion of debate, and an attempt to reject intellectual discourse for ad hominem.

It seems those who engage in it feel privileged as if the rules of discourse don't apply to them and they can win by "playing the race/gender/etc. card".

All these security issues are irrelevant because a white presumably straight guy brought them up?

Really?

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#79

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:47 PM UTC

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #77

philwelch wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zionism--i.e. the settlement and defense of Israel itself--is the Jews' best hope to protect themselves from extermination. You're damn right it's suspicious to criticize that concept.

It's the expansionism, and the dispossession of Palestinians that requires, that gets all activists of my acquaintance _really_ het up. Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank, outside the Wall? Are they "correct" according to Zionism? Because if yes, Zionism is an ideology in favour of ethnic cleansing, which is an uncomfortable spot to sit...

> Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank

I think it's reasonable to oppose those. Though I'm skeptical the settlements make any real difference in the situation. Removing them from the Gaza Strip didn't seem to make any difference, why would removing them from the West Bank help?

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#80

Post by peterwwillis » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 4:50 PM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #75

peterwwillis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No apology necessary. It's just incredibly frustrating that the label has been taken to such an extreme to the point that a whole subculture is guilty by association. It's definitely not the same thing as racial or gender prejudice, but it can be just as damaging to the people who live under the label and deal with its unintended consequences (like getting beaten outside a club for shaving your head and wearing doc m…

Except in this case you are talking about a subculture which is preoccupied with gratuitous violence (even outside the context of racism). That makes it not very comparable to race, gender or geeks. Beating people is obviously not nice. But if you get beaten outside a club for intentionally dressing the same way as a subculture which is historically well-known for beating up people outside clubs for fun (or being a f…

I find it hard to agree with your point. Not because of your suggestion that there's a cultural obsession with violence, but because you seem to think it's fine that these people get stereotyped, because their supposed violent culture deserves it, or something. Wrong is wrong, and stereotype is wrong.

On your comment about a 'cultural obsession with violence': Perhaps that's your personal experience. It's not been mine. I have met many kinds of skinheads, from extremists and gangs to kids who just liked to hang out listening to reggae. I'm pretty sure you'll find lots of different cultures that have widely ranging attitudes.

I can tell you that skinheads are probably more likely than most people to jump in and defend someone, sometimes with violence. But they're also some of the nicest people i've known. I tend to find all kinds of working-class people act this way, regardless of subculture.

I can also tell you that at most punk or hardcore shows i've been to, if there's one or two kids standing in the middle of the pit randomly attacking people, it's usually some form of a skinhead. It's an embarrassment that most people in the subculture don't agree with at all. It is however a great opportunity to meet violence with violence, and show the individual that their actions are not welcome.