Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism • Hacker News Board

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#51

Post by pavel_lishin » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 5:04 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #50

pavel_lishin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should read this great article which explains how tone policing is actually just a silencing tactic used by privileged people to avoid confronting the actual content of a message. Maybe yosamino was tone policing you, but how about this: I'm calling your statement out as being factually wrong. You accuse and malign someone without any evidence, beyond the fact that they were on welfare. Without proof, your asse…

It is not an ad hominem attack. It would be an ad-hominem attack if I said or implied the person was wrong because she was unable to manage her life. I said she was wrong because the data released by Centrelink shows her to be wrong. This is not disputed by the article under discussion, or any parties here. (Unless you dispute this? Perhaps you think Centrelink's data is forged?) The comment Yosamino attempted to ton…

You're comparing Ms. Fox to a child; I would say that counts as an insult. Furthermore, "not being able to manage your life" is not the same thing as "not needing welfare". Needing and getting help is not the same thing as being incompetent.

> Is this in dispute?

Yes, and this is in fact mentioned in the article, albeit in a single sentence.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#52

Post by yosamino » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43

yosamino wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a person is unable to manage their own life and requires the government to be their parent That snide comment is really uncalled for. I hope you will never be in a situation where you require assistance, government or other. But to your larger point: Maybe government and other bureaucracy should strive to collect only that personal data that is strictly necessary for them to function and create a culture in thei…

This case is pretty clearly a conflict. The person in question already released a bunch of information about her situation, but it was released in a dishonest manner designed to make the people on whom she was dependent look bad. Perhaps that conflict doesn't rise to the level that should be necessary to protect privacy, but I think that's at least worth discussing. Is it really productive to prevent government organ…

> I notice that you don't characterize my comment as wrong, you merely criticize the tone.

It was not my intention to characterize your comment as wrong, I was expanding on your valid question about how a bureaucracy should deal with data, by giving you my opinion. Are you under the impression that this conversation is about winning ?

In addition, it is disingenuous of you to imply that every one who receives government assistance is basically a child, unable to exist without a parent, and then get all thin-skinned when getting called out on it.

If you want to make needlessly inflammatory remarks, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

In this case the consequence to you was so harmless, that I even took the next sentence you wrote seriously, agreed with you and gave you my opinion.

Closing remark: Don't use concepts like "tone policing" which describe a real thing, that real people experience when they're in a position of inferior power to try and tell me I am a baddie and that you feel bad, from being softly called out for being inflammatory on purpose. It's not the same thing, and it's a bit embarrassing for you.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#53

Post by yosamino » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think that government organizations don't have any business policing what people say about them. They aren't people; their reputation is not terribly pertinent to getting their job done. Oh, and criticizing tone alongside substantive comments isn't the same as 'a silencing tactic'. Its an effort to keep our forum civil. An actual silencing tactic might look like, calling names like 'privileged people' to s…

It's not about reputation management, it's about an unfortunate effect of democracy: the public is put in the position of making policy, and if the public is misled they might make the wrong policy. On the opposite side of the world, note all the criticism of "FAKE news" and the desire by many people for large corporations collecting data on billions of people to police it. The reason is that a population which doesn…

> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false.

Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that.

> Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment?

Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs a parent, because they're not fit to run their own lives. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might end up in that position, that have nothing to do with being unable to handle your affairs.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#54

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 6:10 PM UTC

yosamino wrote: post #53

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about reputation management, it's about an unfortunate effect of democracy: the public is put in the position of making policy, and if the public is misled they might make the wrong policy. On the opposite side of the world, note all the criticism of "FAKE news" and the desire by many people for large corporations collecting data on billions of people to police it. The reason is that a population which doesn…

> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that. > Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs…

That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#55

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

yosamino wrote: post #52

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is pretty clearly a conflict. The person in question already released a bunch of information about her situation, but it was released in a dishonest manner designed to make the people on whom she was dependent look bad. Perhaps that conflict doesn't rise to the level that should be necessary to protect privacy, but I think that's at least worth discussing. Is it really productive to prevent government organ…

> I notice that you don't characterize my comment as wrong, you merely criticize the tone. It was not my intention to characterize your comment as wrong, I was expanding on your valid question about how a bureaucracy should deal with data, by giving you my opinion. Are you under the impression that this conversation is about winning ? In addition, it is disingenuous of you to imply that every one who receives governm…

Tone policing is a real thing, and you engaged in it. Being a person expressing socially undesirable ideas (as you yourself note) makes me a person lacking privilege (in this conversation, at least).

As noted by many sources, it's a privilege to be able to express your ideas without people being reflexively offended and angered by them. As you yourself note, I lack this privilege.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#56

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #54

yosamino wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that. > Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs…

That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.

[deleted]

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#57

Post by yosamino » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #54

yosamino wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I merely observed that tone policing is not actually an assertion that anything I said was false. Thinking that what someone said was false, is not a necessary condition for replying to comments on a message board. I don't know how you ended up thinking that. > Can you tell me what's "uncivil" about my comment? Yes, it's uncivil to imply that someone who receives government assistance is basically a child and needs…

That's a clever debate tactic - declaring that comments which disagree with you are uncivil, by the mere virtue of disagreeing with you.

I think you're going about this a bit too simple and too confrontational.

Your original comment started out with a generalizing remark which I felt to be uncivil and I called out out on it.

I didn't actually completely disagree with the rest of your comment. Do you understand this ? You raised a perfectly valid point.

My only disagreement with you is that you decided it is good etiquette to insult a whole group of people by implying they have the real-world capacity of children.

I will repeat it again for you:

* I disagree with what I thought was an insulting remark.

* I thought the points you made afterwards were valid and intriguing

Please do not try to misunderstand me on purpose again.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#58

Post by yosamino » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #55

yosamino wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I notice that you don't characterize my comment as wrong, you merely criticize the tone. It was not my intention to characterize your comment as wrong, I was expanding on your valid question about how a bureaucracy should deal with data, by giving you my opinion. Are you under the impression that this conversation is about winning ? In addition, it is disingenuous of you to imply that every one who receives governm…

Tone policing is a real thing, and you engaged in it. Being a person expressing socially undesirable ideas (as you yourself note) makes me a person lacking privilege (in this conversation, at least). As noted by many sources, it's a privilege to be able to express your ideas without people being reflexively offended and angered by them. As you yourself note, I lack this privilege.

With all due respect, insulting people who lack relative power, and declaring them mentally unfit to run their lives does not make you "a person lacking privilege".

Do not think that you're fooling anybody.

You're deliberately using the language created by the social justice movement in an attempt do discredit it by claiming it applies to yourself in ridiculous situations such as this one. It's embarrassingly transparent.

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#59

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 6:47 PM UTC

yosamino wrote: post #58

yummyfajitas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tone policing is a real thing, and you engaged in it. Being a person expressing socially undesirable ideas (as you yourself note) makes me a person lacking privilege (in this conversation, at least). As noted by many sources, it's a privilege to be able to express your ideas without people being reflexively offended and angered by them. As you yourself note, I lack this privilege.

With all due respect, insulting people who lack relative power, and declaring them mentally unfit to run their lives does not make you "a person lacking privilege". Do not think that you're fooling anybody. You're deliberately using the language created by the social justice movement in an attempt do discredit it by claiming it applies to yourself in ridiculous situations such as this one. It's embarrassingly transpa…

I fully understand that most adherents to the social justice movement actually don't believe the arguments they make, and simply use them selectively to serve a few special groups or criticize those they consider enemies.

I'm appealing to the arguments directly, not the flawed humans behind them. Are you suggesting the arguments are wrong?

Re: Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism

#60

Post by yosamino » Mon, Feb 27, 2017, 7:23 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

yosamino wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, insulting people who lack relative power, and declaring them mentally unfit to run their lives does not make you "a person lacking privilege". Do not think that you're fooling anybody. You're deliberately using the language created by the social justice movement in an attempt do discredit it by claiming it applies to yourself in ridiculous situations such as this one. It's embarrassingly transpa…

I fully understand that most adherents to the social justice movement actually don't believe the arguments they make, and simply use them selectively to serve a few special groups or criticize those they consider enemies. I'm appealing to the arguments directly, not the flawed humans behind them. Are you suggesting the arguments are wrong?

> I fully understand that most adherents to the social justice movement actually don't believe the arguments they make,

At best this is a strawman, at worst you are just completely incorrect. If you truly believe this, you need to broaden your horizon, and maybe interact in good-faith with the people you are trying to ridicule because you refuse to understand their position.

I am not telling you that I think their argument will end up being the correct one, or that you'll end up being wrong. I am telling you that you are debating in bad faith, and without trying to actually have a topic to have a debate about.

> Are you suggesting the arguments are wrong?

I am suggesting you are purposefully misunderstanding and mis-using them, because it suits your world-view.

I am also suggesting that you are using dishonest debate tactics to try and "win" at a debate where there is nothing to win. I do not understand why you had to bring your flawed understanding of what is meant by "privilege" in to this discussion and kind of try and use it against me, when all I did was point out to you, that insulting people isn't very nice.

You, not me, not anyone else, chose to write down on the screen in front of you, an insult and then, when being called out on it ever so gently, chose to start a dishonest, bad-faith debate about "tone policing".

Why you did this, is something that only you can answer.

Good day.