Hacker News Reader

Are you... are you trying to prove his point?

>Holy narratives batman

Postmodern narrative analysis as gloss.

>you have ulterior motives for being so disingenuous

Straight into the ad hominem.

>when people who have secure livelihoods in whatever form attempt to "educate" or dismiss the complaints others

Some other form of privilege you just thought up.

>Straight into the ad hominem.

That's not an ad hominem. If you're going to use logical fallacies you had best understand what they are. And don't try to partially quote me to make my statements seem more definitive than they were presented.

Nothing I said even remotely resembles what his point was attempting to state. And I definitely didn't just construct some random form of privilege there.

What is the point of your response to my post?

> That's not an ad hominem.

It absolutely is. You are attacking the person, not his argument.

The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or characteristics and using it to dismiss what he's saying, quite the opposite actually -- I'm saying he's dismissing others, poorly understands what is actually being discussed, and is "misquoting" what other people are actually stating. It's not a fallacy.

I could have called it ignorance, but that'd require he demonstrate some unfamiliarity with the subject, which he clearly isn't all that unfamiliar with it.

It is strange that his his "quote" is getting a free pass, despite it not having any backing to it what so ever.

Have a good read: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

> The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote

Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted?

The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective".

Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.

>The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough".

That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did.

> Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective".

No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society.

>Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.

If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.

> That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No where in academia does it even approach that.

The OP didn't talk about academia, but the more prosaical use, hence the

> "On the street and in _less academic_ varietals of intersectionalism"

---------------

> If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.

We are discussing tenets, but not as they exist in academia, but how they apply to general populace. I mean, you can talk Nihilism in media, without discussing nihilism in academia, even if Nihilism originated in academia.

>The OP didn't talk about academia, but the more prosaical use

I didn't constrain it to academia. I was quite clear in the fact it doesn't really exist anywhere. It doesn't exist because it's a complete mischaracterization. It's extremely frustrating that people, when confronted with this subject, will nitpick and somehow fail at basic reading comprehensions just to attempt to make a point. And then you get the classic e-logicians that want to try to use logical fallacies, when they're clearly very inexperienced in doing so in any kind of rigorous setting, just to devolve the conversation into a meta argument. I mean, I understand the normal human tendency to blockade uncomfortable discussions, but it's so ludicrously obvious when this subject gets brought up. On a "hacker" forum, of all things too.

>We are discussing tenets

Where? Because all that was done in the original post that I replied to was just repeating a talking point used to anchor a narrative into the conversation. They didn't address anyone's actual stated opinions/perspectives/tenets on this subject. I pointed out specifically and very directly where they started to act like they were going to tackle the subject, and then just immediately shifted gears.

> I didn't constrain it to academia.

> > That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that?

Are you claiming that using privilege to shut down discussion isn't used in academical or are you claiming it's neither used in academical nor casual setting.

Because I claim, it very well used for that purpose in casual setting. "Check your privilege" isn't a meme for no reason. So, I do see how it isn't used in academia, but its definitely present on forums and other places.

If we define any statement to be the perspective of the author, then no disagreement can ever be made which would not be ad hominem. At that point we can give up on discussing all together and return to the old ways of solving conflicts with violence.

If you want to have a discussion you must separate statements from perspective. Otherwise we just end up arguing if the credibility of your perspective of nkoren is pretty fundamental to the basis of your perspective. If we then call that perspective to be ignorance on your part, we simply enter the realm of name calling and the quality of discussion enter that special place for which a lot of words are waisted and no agreements are ever found.

>If we define any statement to be the perspective of the author, then no disagreement can ever be made which would not be ad hominem.

His perspective has no basis, it's a narrative, and it was specifically constrained to the current subject matter.

>If we then call that perspective to be ignorance on your part, we simply enter the realm of name calling

Uh, what?

> His perspective has no basis, it's a narrative

That is your perspective. It has no basis, and is just a narrative that you have made up.

One has to go beyond Solipsism in order to have a meaningful discussion.

>That is your perspective.

It's a fact.

It's not inaccurate. there is almost always an element of intimidation.

We're dealing with a problem of unjust exclusion through intimidation and violence. The SJW solution? Exclude white male cis from social participation through violence and intimidation. Not a working path.

That won't work. Read the first 10 pages of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. He talks about the folly of the oppressed that seek liberation by emulating the destructive behaviors of their oppressors. He explains that the oppressor is confined in his role and cannot be expected, even by force, to change. He/She (the oppressor) must be liberated from the cycle of ignorance, fear, and suffeung by the oppressed.

I tend to agree. It fits with what we've seen in history. It makes sense morally. It also aligns with almost every single moral teaching in the world.

>It's not inaccurate. there is almost always an element of intimidation

Is there any way you can back this up in some solid, less qualitative manner? I understand the broadness of what is being discussed, but I've never seen this talking point come to fruition in any relevant manner. It's always a mischaracterization (normally designed to appeal to outrage "consumers") whenever I look deeper to any specific incident that gets presented as "exclusion through intimidation and violence"

Seems pretty accurate as far as my experiences have been, and I can point to a number of prominent cases in the open-source community that looked an awful lot like that.

Which one is pretty accurate? The post I was replying to or my post? In either case I'd be interested in any number of prominent cases in the open source community that are relevant to the current discussion.