Re:DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)
by dang on Sunday October 25, 2015 @02:07PM
(#10447712)
Personal attacks, which this crosses the line into, are not allowed on HN.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)
by anonbanker on Sunday October 25, 2015 @03:59PM
(#10448149)
This might be an Appeal to Dehumanization (I just created a new fallacy), but I consider about 75% of the people on HN to be legitimate people. the remaining reek of sockpuppetry. I felt the grandparent was a sockpuppet, and am treating the account as a dataset for future encounters.
I should be more mindful of the fact that there's (potentially) a human being behind the account I'm treating like an astroturfer. I can see why you considered this a personal attack.
Re:DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)
by dang on Sunday October 25, 2015 @08:12PM
(#10449008)
If you want to name a new fallacy, name the bias where people are more likely to think someone is astroturfing or a shill when they disagree with them. That's a common one, and it's definitely against the rules on HN to go there without evidence. An opposing opinion is not evidence.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR...
Re:DOS Ain't Done Til Lotus Won't Run? (2005)
by anonbanker on Monday October 26, 2015 @12:22AM
(#10449605)
one would assume the Hasty Generalization[1] fallacy would suffice.
When, do you think, does a rhetorical device fall into the realm of propagandizing?
1. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalis...