Live data from Hacker News

Shame Storm

firstthings.com

11–20 of 247 posts

Re: Shame Storm

#11
post #6
post #4

FYI, here's the agenda of these people: https://www.firstthings.com/about/ First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization. The Institute was founded in 1989 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues to confront the ideology of secularism, which insists that the public square must be “naked,” and that faith has no…

Agendas are like you-know-whats... everyone's got one. I wouldn't say I agree with them on everything but this is definitely on the sane side as agendas go, especially these days when vast numbers of people seem to have eaten the brown acid. They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it.

> They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it

+1 to this. It's impossible to write about anything without a basis of reasoning and accepted truths to start from, and to see it laid out offers a level of transparency rarely found.

It also allows the reader to examine and critique the piece better. If I argued that we should do 'x' because it's better for humanity long-term, and you argued that we should do 'y' instead because it will create more happiness in the world, then our argument will devolve into which of our fundamental ideologies/metrics is "better," (humanity vs happiness), rather than whether 'x' or 'y' makes more sense from the agreed-upon agenda/ideology/metric.

Re: Shame Storm

#12
post #8

Public shaming can either become less common or more common over time. If it becomes more common, it might eventually become less damaging. Right now, because only 1000s of people have been targets, it's feasible for employers to search online and not hire people who've been shamed. A historic parallel of diminishing effect is posting identifiable pictures on the Internet. It used to be a big no-no, because when only…

  it'll be the opposite
Why not both?

Re: Shame Storm

#13
The rule for how to deal with this sort of "shaming" is quite simple: no matter what you may have been 'accused' of, always double down and never issue anything that might even loosely resemble an apology or an admission of weakness, no matter what the costs might be. Then simply wait until the mob gets bored and moves on to the next easy target. There are very high profile examples of this working quite well, but mentioning them here would cause undue controversy, so it is best to abstain.

Re: Shame Storm

#15
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agendas are like you-know-whats... everyone's got one. I wouldn't say I agree with them on everything but this is definitely on the sane side as agendas go, especially these days when vast numbers of people seem to have eaten the brown acid. They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it.

Yeah, everyone has an agenda, and I find theirs particularly noxious. You can immediately see their agenda shining through in the linked article once you know what to look for, like how they defend a man who was fired from the Atlantic for advocating for the death penalty for women who get abortions, and poo-pooed the notion that his presence might make his female coworkers very uncomfortable. I don't know about you,…

So rather than debate the content of the article, you go for argumentum ad hominem instead?

You should give pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%...

Re: Shame Storm

#16
post #8

Public shaming can either become less common or more common over time. If it becomes more common, it might eventually become less damaging. Right now, because only 1000s of people have been targets, it's feasible for employers to search online and not hire people who've been shamed. A historic parallel of diminishing effect is posting identifiable pictures on the Internet. It used to be a big no-no, because when only…

[deleted]

Re: Shame Storm

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, everyone has an agenda, and I find theirs particularly noxious. You can immediately see their agenda shining through in the linked article once you know what to look for, like how they defend a man who was fired from the Atlantic for advocating for the death penalty for women who get abortions, and poo-pooed the notion that his presence might make his female coworkers very uncomfortable. I don't know about you,…

So rather than debate the content of the article, you go for argumentum ad hominem instead? You should give pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%...

I'm literally debating the content of the article in the comment you replied to.

Re: Shame Storm

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than debate the content of the article, you go for argumentum ad hominem instead? You should give pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%...

I'm literally debating the content of the article in the comment you replied to.

You aren't debating their points, you're debating their motives, as does your top post. This is literally textbook ad hominem here.

Re: Shame Storm

#19
post #4

FYI, here's the agenda of these people: https://www.firstthings.com/about/ First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization. The Institute was founded in 1989 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues to confront the ideology of secularism, which insists that the public square must be “naked,” and that faith has no…

So what? Having actually read the article, nothing about the author's conservative viewpoint or religiosity is hidden (e.g. "In October 2010, I appeared on a panel to promote a book of essays by young conservatives, Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation." and "...my belief that suffering is sometimes necessary for personal growth, and an essential part of God’s plan for our salvation..."). While we, as liberals, may disagree with those personal beliefs, they're not the main topic of the article so your comment is merely an ad hominem.

Re: Shame Storm

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm literally debating the content of the article in the comment you replied to.

You aren't debating their points, you're debating their motives, as does your top post. This is literally textbook ad hominem here.

I can't help but notice the irony that all you're doing here is ad hominem against me, in an even purer form.
Post reply on HN