undefined | Better HN

0 pointsUkv2y ago0 comments

> I was referring to this statement you'd made: "I'd claim the mission is a failure right from user #1: https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png - the quality standard of ad-hominem soapboxing is already near rock bottom."

> You seem to be claiming that the quality is low, so I was wondering if you had any specific counter-arguments to anything stated in those two comments/articles you referenced in your image.

I try not to determine quality of an argument by how much I disagree with it. E.G: Many high-quality papers have thorough rebuttals, and many rants flaming the other side will happen to agree with my stance, or alternatively have no clear argument structure and nothing much concrete to refute.

What's in the screenshot falls towards the latter. Possibly I could take the repeated "idiots" as an attempt at a point, and so reference papers generally finding correlation in the opposite direction [0][1], which can in turn be refuted (hopefully with sources), but again I don't think this is the place for that argument - make a post on your site with opening statement or something.

[0]: http://davesource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-an... [1]: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf

> because you found the language not to your taste

If you're aiming for high quality discussion, I'd claim throwing around ad-hominems does run counter to that aim, and that debate (for which you'd need to attract people you disagree with to the site) is generally more productive when civil.

> Personally I'm more interested in the content of one's arguments rather than simply the presentation, but to each their own.

For the argument itself, ignoring discussion quality, you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side, but not just have a string of insults in place of making a good argument. This is about it's content.

You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists).

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

JSavageOne2y ago

You literally have addressed nothing in the comments/articles you criticized, and are simply dismissing a combined 2,340 words across two articles as "ad hominem". Just admit that you aren't interested in debating any of the points raised, and are simply offended by the aggressive language. That's fine, but you're not refuting anything or engaging in any form of debate.

> you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side

There is clearly an argument here in addition to the use of the word "idiots". 2,340 words of ad hominem would be pretty boring and meaningless.

> You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists).

I'm not asking for generic feedback on writing a research paper here. You posted a screenshot of some comments/articles claiming they were low quality, and have failed to demonstrate how any of the points made in the articles were incorrect.

In any case I appreciate the feedback. It doesn't surprise me that aggressive language is polarizing and turns some people off. I personally don't have a problem with that though so long as one also presents an argument. I personally think intensity can actually be a positive because it's more entertaining. For example had the comments/articles instead been written in a more dry and neutral tone, I highly doubt you would've bothered to comment at all.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse