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

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#111

Post by ceol » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 9:59 PM UTC

    > Today, Ryan Singel, the editor at Wired's Threat Level 
    > blog responded to my blog post, but incorrectly frames
    > my criticism as if it were solely directed at Quinn 
    > Norton and her coverage of Cryptocat.

Considering about half of your original article was strictly discussing Norton's coverage, I can see where he got that idea. Then your original piece includes this bit:

    > It isn't clear why Norton felt it wasn't necessary to 
    > publish any dissenting voices. From her public Tweets, 
    > it is however, quite clear that Norton has no love for 
    > the crypto community, which she believes is filled 
    > with "privileged", "mostly rich 1st world white boys 
    > w/ no real problems who don't realize they only build 
    > tools [for] themselves."

That's an attack on the author, don't you think? You just implied she neglected to include any criticism of the tool because she hates the crypto community. Not only does this illustrate your lack of understanding the concept of privilege, but it's rude and unnecessary, so I don't blame Ryan for taking offense.

For starters, Quinn wasn't trying to bury facts— the paragraph about how Cryptocat is an experiment is directly above the screenshot of the app, so it's fairly noticeable.

Second, your section titled "On the issue of privilege" doesn't actually talk about privilege. It talks about how two white men were stopped at the border to the US and one who had some of his devices seized. Her tweet was stating that maybe tools made by white men in first-world countries might not be able to adequately address the needs of less fortunate individuals under oppressive regimes.

So sure, it's great to call out projects that seem Too Good To Be True™, but multiple times you drew attention to Quinn's specific article, and even once needlessly quoted a few of her tweets. I don't see that attention paid to any other reporter, so Ryan's rebuttal is mostly on point.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#112

Post by fusiongyro » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:04 PM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #107

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…

>Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification Well, that's because most other countries weren't plopped down in the middle of an inhabited region, resulting in decades of violence and oppression that, and this part is critical, continue to this day . The US also shouldn't have been plopped down on the land inhabited by American Indians, but since the dust from that has mostly settled…

It's counterproductive to bathe ourselves in outrage over mistakes that cannot be rectified when there are problems today that could be solved, or at least improved on, by calm diplomatic negotiation, if either side could distance themselves from their hurt feelings long enough to cool off a little and be realistic. Getting everyone riled up over the injustice of it all pushes this process into the future and benefits no one.

> I guess they look analogous? If you squint?

Feelings have a way of being irrational, but ignoring them exacerbates problems rather than solving them.

> I mean, for one thing, saying that establishing Israel was a mistake is not the same as saying that Israel should be dissolved.

No, but it doesn't bring anything to the table either, other than to make things emotionally charged and raise the stakes.

> Finally, while it clearly would not work to dissolve Israel at this stage

The idea that dissolving Israel was ever on the table is absurd. You can't just march into someone's country and dissolve it because you don't like how it was founded.

> the problems with that plan do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.

I'd like to know how that could possibly be true. It's quite a stretch for me to imagine that when the leadership of Israel's enemies call for "the Zionist entity" to be pushed into the sea they have something else in mind.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#113

Post by bybjorn » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:06 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #92

I'm thinking Singel's -ism meter is just screwed up, here's a twitter post where he seems to equate the driver-bicyclist relationship to racism, and in a somewhat offensive way to boot: https://twitter.com/rsingel/status/232719063854510082

John Lennon, apparently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Is_the_Nigger_of_the_World

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#114

Post by natrius » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:39 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #92

I'm thinking Singel's -ism meter is just screwed up, here's a twitter post where he seems to equate the driver-bicyclist relationship to racism, and in a somewhat offensive way to boot: https://twitter.com/rsingel/status/232719063854510082

I don't think that was offensive. I think it was a pithy, vivid way to get his point across.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#115

Post by synth » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:40 PM UTC

pleasebehonest wrote: post #109

synth wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I get concerned with is that the implicit acceptance of this wider issue claim tends to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate. The "boy's club" mentality that a lot of people glean from the "tech zeitgeist", for lack of a better term, is not entirely unfounded. I thi…

So, what would you say to an underprivileged, unattractive, short, Caucasian male? Perhaps, "I'm sorry, but I'm going step on your rights and make you a casualty in the fight for the 'greater good', as defined by me. Please step aside and keep quiet." Or would you bother saying anything to him at all? Maybe you aren't obsessed with driving wedges between various groups in society, causing them to become factions with…

Race, gender, class, etc. are inextricably tangled up together. I'm not sure why you (seem to) think being underprivileged and Caucasian somehow means you will be trampled on or have your rights taken away. (How exactly?)

These "wedges between various groups in society" have existed ever since we've had an amygdala. They are innate, in that sense. We ought to accept that people as individuals, and more so as groups, are too biased when it comes to things like race, gender, etc, and we should address these problems in honest terms, as opposed to presuming that everyone is a rational actor who will realize that Racism Is Bad After All if only we did/didn't do X.

> Maybe you aren't obsessed with driving wedges between various groups in society, causing them to become factions with increasing animosity towards one another, but you're doing it.

Most of the animosity you might be referring to, has existed since day 1, but is just getting more attention from the media. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

> It's odd: No group hates underprivileged, unattractive whites males nearly as much as privileged, attractive white males. It's a cruel form of preening.

It's easier to hate people that you can relate to. Nothing odd about that. It's why you often see nerds making fun of other nerds with a ferocity greater than a non-nerd would ever muster.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#116

Post by taligent » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:47 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #79

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And you wonder why almost the entire world bar US politicians hates Israel. Not Jews. Israel.

Illegally putting "facts on the ground" through settlements is a big deal to the Palestinians and it's a big deal to everyone else. It needs to stop.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#117

Post by synth » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 11:00 PM UTC

s_baby wrote: post #44

synth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized, or could be in the future. And no, being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder. What position do "we" possess? As a user of ycombinator you are likely in a position of…

I speak for myself alone, and the "we" was obviously rhetorical. The parent comment spoke of males in monolithic terms like "masculine identity", and I seized on that. I also never extrapolated my own personal experience onto anyone else, just the totality of my experience, which is all anyone can offer really. So there's really no need for you to project any sort of messianic arrogance on me.

If you have a problem with people speaking in broad terms (this is not what ad hominem means), you might want to reconsider the comment space of a news aggregation website as the avenue for any deep, precise insight into unbelievably complex social issues.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#118

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 11:50 PM UTC

taligent wrote: post #116

philwelch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

And you wonder why almost the entire world bar US politicians hates Israel. Not Jews. Israel. Illegally putting "facts on the ground" through settlements is a big deal to the Palestinians and it's a big deal to everyone else. It needs to stop.

I never justified the settlements, I just think anti-Israeli sentiment wouldn't be improved any by removing the settlements. It almost doesn't matter if Israel does everything right or wrong anyway, because that's not the reason the world hates them.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#119

Post by CamperBob2 » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 12:16 AM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #68

freehunter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You don't feel that someone like the Rev. Al Sharpton would fit into such a category?

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#120

Post by CamperBob2 » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 12:19 AM UTC

ceol wrote: post #111

> Today, Ryan Singel, the editor at Wired's Threat Level > blog responded to my blog post, but incorrectly frames > my criticism as if it were solely directed at Quinn > Norton and her coverage of Cryptocat. Considering about half of your original article was strictly discussing Norton's coverage, I can see where he got that idea. Then your original piece includes this bit: > It isn't clear why Norton felt it wasn't…

That's an attack on the author, don't you think?

(Shrug) Quinn effectively attacked and discredited herself by posting that Tweet. It's fair to bring it up when suggesting that she might not be the most qualified person to write articles on subjects related to cryptography and information security.

If there are any subjects that don't benefit from uninformed opinions posted by dilettantes, cryptography and security would be near the top of the list.