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

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#41

Post by tkahn6 »

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.

Yes, to the point where the pre-emptive defense against being labeled an antisemite is used itself to shut down or shift the focus of discussion.

It's so wonderfully ironic and hypocritical, and it's extremely common on sites like reddit.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#42

Post by king_jester »

pi18n wrote: post #29
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…

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…

> For the majority of men in the US that position is that they're more likely to be murdered, arrested, serve relatively longer sentences, receive less money for health care, pay more for insurance, get called to selective service, and die younger.

All of those things you listed are hugely intersectional with race, sexual orientation, and class. In terms of sexism, men will rarely face institutional barriers based solely on their gender and are unlikely to be have their lives affected by being called sexist.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#44

Post by s_baby »

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…

>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 privilege. Extrapolating your experience onto the general male populace is an ad-hom attack on all marginalized men when done systematically.

Because you are the figurehead of "men", gay and transgendered men have no where to go when they are kicked out of their fundamentalist household. After all, why would you build shelters for the privileged?

Because you are the figurehead of "men", minority boys are falling through the cracks. Have you seen the difference in employment rates of african-american men and women? Have you seen the difference in incarceration rates?

Yes, some men like you experience disproportionate mobility towards the top. But even more experience mobility towards the very bottom.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#45

Post by smackfu »

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?

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#46

Post by fusiongyro »

mistercow wrote: post #24
blvr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes the complaints are more common than the occurrence (I think that's pretty normal, though), but the occurrence isn't uncommon. Back in my reddit days I was accused of anti-semitism merely for saying that creating Israel at that particular location was a mistake. Was that a real person? A false flag troll? Who knows. I've also read accounts by Jewish people whose family members called them "self-hating Jews" becaus…

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 by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews. I'm absolutely not saying this is what you're saying, but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#47

Post by king_jester »

shiven wrote: post #2

Reverse-sexism undermines and hurts the anti-sexist and female-friendly atmosphere that most of the tech community would like to foster. Gender discrimination and sexism need to be called out and stopped everywhere, but "crying wolf", without reason, weakens the very moral ground we purport to defend.

> Reverse-sexism undermines and hurts the anti-sexist and female-friendly atmosphere that most of the tech community would like to foster.

It may be that the tech community would like to foster anti-sexism, but reality shows that it does anything but that. Also, reverse-sexism isn't a thing, there is just sexism (which men, as a gender, are largely not affected by).

> Gender discrimination and sexism need to be called out and stopped everywhere, but "crying wolf", without reason, weakens the very moral ground we purport to defend.

Soghoian's original paragraph about Norton's tweets are sexist as they don't add anything to his original blog post except to taint Norton as someone who is biased against men, which Norton's tweets don't even support. Soghoian knows his audience is primarily men and even if he didn't intend to show Norton in that light he sure did.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#48

Post by ajscherer »

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 category of bad behaviors, some of which are worse than anything I could imagine stemming from being accused of sexism. I am not saying that being falsely accused of sexism is nothing. It certainly would make me angry and frustrated to be so attacked. I just think false accusation of sexism is worse than the least severe forms of sexist behavior, and better than the most severe forms of sexists behavior.

Asserting that false accusations of sexism are always worse than sexism seems obviously false.

Re: Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

#50

Post by franzus »

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.

do this in germany and you go to prison. usa still has the most liberal freedom of speech laws.
Post reply on HN