Hacker News Reader

Comment by spindritf | Hacker News Reader

> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically.

That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche website and clearly among people smart enough to get the gist of a comment?

Or is it just me? As in I'm just noticing those more often?

[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

View on HN

HN's voting "thingy" is obviously engaging a middle-ground positioning, especially when it comes to political views. Moreover I suspect that arguments are taken more serious when putting some "I try to be aware of my biases" upfront.

Especially among (more or less) non-political communities like this one an argument starting with a"I am an independent voter" premise is most likely going to get a better reception than a "I have been for years a dedicated follower of politician x". Not that I am a fan of this, quite the opposite - but there are other sites much more suitable for political "confrontations".

I'd hesitate to describe HN as non-political. The majority of HNer's are very pro-capitalist and pro-business from what I've observed, which makes sense given the community's focus on start-ups. The popular political sentiments that you'll find on Reddit are very different from those you'll find on HN.

You have to admit that most people immediately roll their eyes when they read another die-hard Ron Paul supporter. That disclaimer lets people know/believe that this isn't a fanatic speaking. While I agree with Robin Hanson that I wish we didn't need disclaimers, it truly is an effective way of signalling, and often essential in tone-less, emotionally-ambiguous internet discussions.

Disclaimer: Ron Paul supporter (hopefully not too fanatical)

Fallacies abound in politics. If anything, I think the majority of political discourse is based solely on fallacies. Such as "individual X is Y and is associated with group Z, hence all individuals associated with Z must be Y".

It's a game of influence, not rationality. If calling people names "wins" an argument with less effort and time than applying logically sound arguments, why bother with logical arguments?

The sad part is that Paul has been the only politician in a long time to resist the trend and talk about the issues in a serious and straightforward manner, only to be attacked and ridiculed.

He's saying he prefers an authentic candidate with principles over candidates whom pander to the media to get votes, even if his views differ in some areas.

It's just you. This is a rhetorical device that's been around for centuries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com