Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

paranoia.dubfire.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#161

Post by peterwwillis »

alttag wrote: post #127
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.

Interesting. The GP's usage is aligned with every instance I've encountered over the past 20-odd years (in the U.S.), while the Wikipedia entry appears to have a European focus and is starkly different from my understanding of U.S.-ian denotation and connotation of the term. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster: "2: a usually white male belonging to any of various sometimes violent youth gangs whose members have close-shaven h…

Go to a concert or local show which has music that skinheads like. Find one, and talk to them. They're pretty nice people generally, though they also may be defensive from getting so much shit for being associated with the white power fuckheads. I've heard the european skinheads are a lot more touchy than the american ones.

If they have a patch that says SHARP on it, they are 100% anti-racist, and will probably beat you up if you make a racist joke. A bit violent, yes. But not without reason. Again, not unlike some others (people like Ian MacKaye used to shave their heads and get into fights over stupid personal beliefs and weren't skinheads at all...)

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#162

Post by [deleted] »

alttag wrote: post #127
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.

Interesting. The GP's usage is aligned with every instance I've encountered over the past 20-odd years (in the U.S.), while the Wikipedia entry appears to have a European focus and is starkly different from my understanding of U.S.-ian denotation and connotation of the term. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster: "2: a usually white male belonging to any of various sometimes violent youth gangs whose members have close-shaven h…

[deleted]

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#163

Post by pessimizer »

philwelch wrote: post #131
pessimizer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criticizing the entire idea of a theocracy, and that a religion should (of course) have a homeland to dominate, does not make you an antisemite, nor covered with antisemitism "shadow." More an antisemitism smear. Now, I am suspicious of the people who are irate about Israel as a Jewish state, but are all about the Dalai Lama. I don't see how that makes sense unless you have something against Jewish people.

The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line. So Israel is not a homeland for a religion, it is a homeland for a nationality. Sure, a convert to Judaism is also a Jew. But Judaism is explicitly not a religion for everyone, it is only a religion for the Jews.…

>The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line.

So it's just racist? I prefer to think of it as a theocracy that preserves a culture that has been historically very endangered. That, I don't feel as bad about.

>it is a homeland for a nationality.

If you, by law, make being a member of a religion a sufficient qualification for citizenship in a nation, this is self-fulfilling.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#164

Post by philwelch »

pessimizer wrote: post #163
philwelch wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line. So Israel is not a homeland for a religion, it is a homeland for a nationality. Sure, a convert to Judaism is also a Jew. But Judaism is explicitly not a religion for everyone, it is only a religion for the Jews.…

>The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line. So it's just racist? I prefer to think of it as a theocracy that preserves a culture that has been historically very endangered. That, I don't feel as bad about. >it is a homeland for a nationality. If you, by l…

A theocracy is a government that governs based upon the dictates of religious doctrine. The Israeli government does not do this in any way, shape, or form. It is as secular as most Western countries.

Most nationalities are passed down by descent. If this constitutes racism, then so does the citizenship law of every nation that grants the right of citizenship to the children of a citizen. Nearly every country does this, so there is no reason to single out Israel unless you are trying to enforce a double standard.

Some nationalities allow outside individuals to join, and the Jewish nation is one of these. Like any nation, the Jewish nation has steep requirements of cultural belief and assimilation in order to join, namely conversion to the Jewish religion. But this is not merely a matter of belief. A Gentile who merely believes in Judaism is still not a Jew until they formally convert (i.e. joins the nation), just as an otherwise qualified foreigner who can pass the US citizenship exam is still not an American until they take the test and swear the oath to become a naturalized citizen.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#165

Post by philwelch »

darkarmani wrote: post #97
philwelch wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is the opposite of "no true Scotsman" - "always true antisemite"?

Not at all. It's a recognition that if racists run around using code words to thinly veil their hatred, it behooves the rest of us to make sure we don't get confused with the racists.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#166

Post by gyardley »

jopt wrote: post #133
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?

Isn't that a Tu Queue fallacy?

It would be if I was trying to invalidate the author's argument, which I wasn't - I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#167

Post by ceol »

othermaciej wrote: post #134
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…

The concept of "privilege" as used in social justice speak is merely a tool used to discredit people who are in the wrong demographic/social/cultural categories without having to address the content of their arguments. And pointing this out is labeled "derailing", to avoid having to address that line of argument either.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has used the concept of privilege to unfairly discredit another person's opinion, but I think you're trying to apply cold, hard reasoning to something that requires deeper thought. Privilege, when used in social justice, refers to an area where one person has an advantage and another person belonging to a different group does not. If you need help understanding the concept, take a few minutes to read this excellent post on the subject: https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/

This doesn't mean a white person can never talk about race. It means they need to understand they're coming from an entirely different perspective— a perspective that has the upper hand. Social justice covers topics that are inherently complex and might not conform to strict models and theories. This means where an argument comes from has a lot of bearing on its validity. That white person from earlier can participate, but they have to understand they've been living in a world where they get a head start, and often times, they have no idea when that world is giving it to them.

Anyway, that was a bit of a rant, so please read the blog post I linked to get a better idea.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#168

Post by evan_ »

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

he deleted the tweet and posted an apology: https://twitter.com/rsingel/status/233624361104470016

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#170

Post by othermaciej »

ceol wrote: post #167
othermaciej wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of "privilege" as used in social justice speak is merely a tool used to discredit people who are in the wrong demographic/social/cultural categories without having to address the content of their arguments. And pointing this out is labeled "derailing", to avoid having to address that line of argument either.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has used the concept of privilege to unfairly discredit another person's opinion, but I think you're trying to apply cold, hard reasoning to something that requires deeper thought. Privilege, when used in social justice, refers to an area where one person has an advantage and another person belonging to a different group does not. If you need help understanding the concept, take a few minu…

Key phrase of your comment:

> This means where an argument comes from has a lot of bearing on its validity.

That's a more polite way of saying what I said.

Post reply on HN