Hacker News Reader

Comment by CONTRARlAN | Hacker News Reader

> I don't know, but it's a fascinating experiment, anyone who is not paying for it should be in favor of this experiment -- unless you just hate poor people.

What a bizarre statement. It's really easy to read that as two things:

1. You're totally game to experiment, just so long as it's not your money. 2. Anyone who doesn't agree must hate poor people.

I'm pretty certain you didn't really mean either, but the net result of that sentence is awfully unproductive: "anyone who doesn't like this must either have skin in the game or hate poor people!"

View on HN

I don't see the problem with this reading.

1. It's POSSIBLE to be unhappy about this, IF it is your money being used, and you have certain criticisms.

but

2. If it's not your money, I can't see how anyone could possibly have an issue with the experiment.

Which part do you disagree with? I'm not saying that anyone whose money is involved here HAS to be upset about it. I'm just saying, if they have skin in the game, they at least may have REASON to quibble. And if they don't, I don't see what complaint a person could possibly have with research (that, incidentally, benefits people).

That's the common tactic of argument these days. The notion of "criticism" has been re-cast as "hate". Hate is more easily dismissed, ridiculed, and trivialized.

After re-reading your parent's statement a few times, I think (s)he thought I was saying you must dislike it if you're paying for it, but if you're not paying for it, you can't dislike it.

I merely was saying I can't see a valid criticism for those of us who aren't paying for it. There may be some valid criticisms of the idea, but I'd rather see how this goes.

I can't think of a single (valid) reason to oppose basic research on solving poverty, when that research has no negative impact on the person who might be opposing it. Can you? The only one I can think of is "I want to ensure poor people are kept poor."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com