Hacker News Reader

A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment

There's at least one other reason users may have flagged it, and in line with the site guidelines: it doesn't sufficiently satisfy intellectual curiosity, and at the same time has a high likelihood of producing little to no constructive discussion while also being very susceptible to flamewars. That doesn't mean that the topic shouldn't be discussed, just that it's unlikely to be constructively and civilly discussed on HN.

That's fair, but the article was creating (mostly) civil discussion and it was on the topic of perceived bias in open source software communities. I can't not think that it was shot down by someone to defend an ideology.

> I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US

On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment? Or are you basing this on "feelings > reality", as you put it?

> Further, it's getting rather tiring that the US is always listed as an example when countries/societies exist without legal protection for all races/genders and where slavery and forced labor is still legal.

The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

> The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

Recently learned the awesome names for this fallacy. "Tu quoque"[1] is the general name. Whataboutism[2] is the awesome term for its use in soviet propeganda.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I don't think I was committing a logical fallacy -- I took exception to the article author's attempt at establishing alleged certainty, especially using relativistic terms.

In any case, based on your mention of learning new fallacy names, you'll probably like this site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious: looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior (perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?) Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)

Oh, sorry, didn't even think of that. Thank you for vouching for it.

> encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?

How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??

I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing. What I am trying to express is that it can sometimes be reduced to little more than name calling if not done well. Say, for example, I identify what I believe to be a straw man. If my response is only "That's a straw man", while it may be accurate, it's not very useful to the discourse. It should include at least why I believe the argument to be building a straw man.

It can also lead to a desire to score points rather than to reach some kind of mutual understanding (if not agreement), which also doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion.

I hope it's clear that my explanation as to why that particular URI is banned is just speculation, and not very strong at that. I can't think of a better explanation, however.

For what it's worth, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking along these lines:

citing a logical fallacy is often employed by those who are lazy and aren't genuinely addressing a given argument.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076

For reference, a couple of other HN threads where this URI has been discussed:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078

The context in that first link is:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...

This adds a little more nuance:

1) LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE USUALLY IRRELEVANT OR CITED INCORRECTLY...

2) CITING LOGICAL FALLACIES IS USUALLY COWARDLY AND LAZY ... " Rather than engage with the ideas in a text, it's much easier to skim through it trying to spot a quick fallacy; and once a fallacy is found, a baloney detector can safely ignore everything else. "

I wouldn't say this at all demonstrates the weakness in identifying fallacies. Falsely identifying fallacies is not identifying fallacies (the fallacy fallacy?); and nothing says that one fallacy invalidates an entire text; also, I find there argument there weak, e.g "these people seem to have no other opinions on the text" - so what?

Also, I just read the section about the sexist skeptic. I find it deeply flawed, many of the arguments are sound, and just because the author thinks they are inappropriate doesn't mean they are - that's just the authors subjective, emotive opinion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to pointing out logical fallacies, which I understand to be the subject at hand in this branch of the thread.

Are you perhaps responding to something (much further) upthread, such as here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770

If so, please respond there.

No, I'm referring to the content of the link above, https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...

'Respond like this, and you couldn't be more offensive if you said "You're too emotional, my dear: let me correct you with the firm hand of reason." In throwing around accusations of logical fallacy in such a sensitive context, you're being an asshole. And furthermore, you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group.'

You have just entirely illustrated the truth of this paragraph.

What sensitive context is there to my comments? This is a conversation about another conversation - the context of the first conversation isn't the same.

I disagree with the author, so I don't believe there is any truth to it, illustrated or not. But in any case, the reason I describe it as 'emotive', is the name-calling ("asshole") and and things like "you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group"; why is this an issue if on the basis of merit - Because it's an offended woman, as opposed to an offended man?

the context here is:

> By way of illustration, suppose you are a guy who identifies as a skeptic. And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist

So, talking to a male skeptic that has presumably perpetrated no act of sexism, but is being accused of it in this context, and is as such defending the movement. Is this interpretation wrong?

Let me alter the proposition a little:

> suppose you are a Muslim. And then suppose you encounter someone who tells you that because of the sexism they have encountered from other Muslims, they have decided that Islam is fundamentally sexist.

Would it still be as offensive to say:

"These people are not assholes because they are skeptics, they're assholes who happen to be skeptics"

And in the case, it's more likely that religious beliefs could lead to sexist ones, compared to skepticism.

I'll admit to being a little confused by your response. I understand you to be arguing that

(a) identifying fallacies is good; and

(b) pointing out the fallacy and nothing more is fine.

As for (a), we're in agreement, and I believe I was clear in saying so above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13320712):

I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing.

As for (b), if pointing out the fallacy is limited only to identifying the fallacy by name, I disagree, and also expressed this in the same comment. In short (and I repeat myself), I think it lends itself to point scoring rather than cooperative, constructive discussion. If it includes explaining how the argument is an instance of the fallacy, I think that's better.

I appreciate your taking the time to provide the reference to "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks". However, while it's related, I'm don't believe I'm making the arguments you cite (though the second is similar in spirit) and argue against.

I'm fine with our possible disagreement on (b). I can understand why some people may think that identifying and naming the logical fallacy is sufficient. I just don't agree, as I want more out of the discussion. If I've misrepresented or misinterpreted what you've written or intended, please forgive me as this is not my intent, and I would appreciate you pointing it out. Otherwise, I thank you for the discussion and take my leave.

I think some fallacies are to vague too identify without more detail. Some are easily mis-identified, or mis-applied, esp those such as "Appeal to Authority".

However, I think most are not so.

I don't think anyone can ask for more engagement. Being made aware of a fallacy is like being made aware of a spelling mistake - it is just a note of something to be fixed, no further engagement is needed from whoever identifies it.

There is also another issue: there is a lot to read on the web, all competing for attention. I think there is a greater burden on a writer to produce fallacy-free text than there is on the many potential readers to read any one text despite its flaws. A fallacy is a common falsehood, so common it can be easily identified without further discussion of the topic. The nature of fallacies, to me, seem to be quick, efficient identification of logical flaws i.e. the low hanging fruit.

As such, maybe a text with such flaws shouldn't be engaged, if such basic flaws exist? People pointing out these flaws both help you fix them, and hinder by warning off readers until they are fixed.

> On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment?

The burden of proof is usually on those who state that something is a problem. So .. are there reliable sources for that claim?

> On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have evidence that women and ethnic and sexual minorities are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment?

The FBI gathers data on bias in crimes[0]; I reject that the issues are specifically "common" in the US because they constitute a small number of the total crimes committed[1] and are taken very seriously (harsher sentences and being racist/sexist has severe social stigma). The article's use of "common" is an attempt at alleged certainty, much like saying "we all know that developers.." to avoid having to actually back the claim.

> The "I can't be bad as long as someone, somewhere, is worse" argument is a classic excuse to get out of ever having to improve anything.

That's not the argument here. It's stating that it's tiring that the US is always singled out as if it's somehow _specifically_ bad. Strong people fought for equal protection of people under the law in the US, so why is it consistently picked as an example over, say, Pakistan or Mauritania? Even if I was to concede that calling someone a "bitch" on Twitter falls under "violence and mistreatment" (as is suggested by the Coral Project's cited source), why should US shoulder all of the blame for the global site?

[0] https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015-hate-crime-statistics-... [1] https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release...

>That's not the argument here. It's stating that it's tiring that the US is always singled out as if it's somehow _specifically_ bad.

And that isn't the case in the original quote. The US isn't listed as specifically bad, it is included as a member of a list where the author contends mistreatment of some groups is common:

"In societies including the US where violence.."

Nothing special or notably different there. Additionally, usually the kind of articles you are alluding to are addressing a US, or at the very least a Western/Anglophone audience, so if the US or UK are pointedly included, the intent may be read as "'we' are not any better at this thing than we imagine 'other' countries are".

> And that isn't the case in the original quote. The US isn't listed as specifically bad, it is included as a member of a list where the author contends mistreatment of some groups is common:

I contend that the US doesn't belong in that list, and also that a generalization with a single enumeration is almost comical to defend as not attempting to identify as a specific case.

e.g. "Software pirates, including 7Z7, often..."

> the intent may be read as "'we' are not any better at this thing than we imagine 'other' countries are".

Except that the UK and the US is quite good about these things to the extent that the author had to cite something written about _Twitter_ (with a title mocking a perception of men, no less) to make a point about violence.

>I contend that the US doesn't belong in that list..

I'm not engaging with that, as I said "the author contends".

However, the single enumeration stands as it is addressing a US audience. It isn't a special case on the list, it is a special case to that audience.

>"Software pirates, including 7Z7, often..."

If the article that included the above sentence was addressing an audience of people to whom I was particularly special (ie. the 7Z7 Fan Club), then this is completely appropriate, even if I am not a particularly rabid example amongst other software pirates.

>Except that the UK and the US is quite good about these things..

The point then, is that despite patting ourselves on the back, we are not yet as good as we could be, nor as good as we apparently think we are - despite there being worse examples in the world.

> On what grounds do you reject that? Do you have hard evidence that women and ethnic/sexual minorities in the US are not at increased risk of violence and mistreatment? Or are you basing this on "feelings > reality", as you put it?

That's beside the point of what the parent comment actually said.

To illustrate: Certainly, national park rangers are at increased risk of being struck by lightning during the course of their work (as compared to, say, software developers). However, it would be silly to claim that lightning strikes of rangers are common.

What your parent comment basically did (in the analogy) is state that lightning strikes are not common for park rangers. You try to counter that by saying that lightning strikes are more common for park rangers than for others. That makes no sense.

You're engaged in a discussion that is purely about the definition of fuzzy words. What is "common"? It's about trying to get the upper hand rhetorically by defining words (from both of you). Not a particularly enlightening debate.

> You're engaged in a discussion that is purely about the definition of fuzzy words. What is "common"? It's about trying to get the upper hand rhetorically by defining words (from both of you). Not a particularly enlightening debate.

Good catch and I considered that as well, but decided it was worth commenting on for discussion as I took the use of "common" with the context of a named country/society to be a claim of happening with increased frequency relative to other countries/societies or to mean "likely for one in that country to experience" (while also noting the author was casually asserting something quite bold).

I quite strongly believe in online anonymity, and as such, I don't want the argument for it to become weakened against debate.

> A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment,

No. People flag ESR posts because he's a pathological arsehole and his threads contain some deeply unpleasant posts.

>I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US

Interesting that you complained about people not bothering to support their claims, and then immediately make a claim with no support.

Who is ESR?

Eric S Raymond, author of some important and influential software related books (Cathedral and Bazaar, for example), but also a mysogynistic, homophobic, conspiracy theorist

It's hard to pick one example because there are so many, but read what he says about the Catholic abuse scandal: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=26

There are so many errors scattered through that piece that there's no point rebutting them. It's best to just flag anything (not related to computing) about ESR.

> It's best to just flag anything (not related to computing) about ESR.

That doesn't mean that he's incapable of making a coherent or interesting argument. Don't flag just because you expect to be offended, as the flag mechanism prevents others from being exposed to content that they may be interested in, if even just to sharpen their sword for use on someone trying to put what you see as harmful/dangerous thoughts into actions.

ESR is Eric S Raymond, a troll that made his fame from writing about/antagonizing the Free Software community. His "accomplishments" include starting the "Open Source vs Free Software" naming controversy and ruining The Hacker's Dictionary.

"citation needed" does not need a citation.

The bar is higher for an article, than a comment.

Same here. The US definitely has a lot of problems, but the criticisms are often devoid of any context and only serve to further some narrow agenda.

> In societies including the US...

Oh, so the other unnamed "decent" societies must have figured it (their social and cultural problems) out then. And you've chosen to focus on "digital interactions"... why??