News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on ‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Computer Science Students. Parent comment

Re:‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Comp... by AlexandrB on Thursday November 15, 2018 @05:31PM (#18464089)
> This seems to capture the current intellectual zeitgeist very well. Once we name something, we can dismiss it without engaging it.

In the internet age, this is a necessity because the other pattern is the same claims repeated over and over again with the expectation that a comprehensive rebuttal must be provided each time. At some point you have to name the thing so it can be added as an entry to Wikipedia and move on. See also: how global warming denialists have an evergreen grab bag of false claims to pull from and expect a thesis-length answer to each one.

Also, this is nothing new. Commonly referenced fallacies like tu quoque are a way of saying that the other person is arguing from shaky ground, and their argument does not need a complete rebuttal until they refine it a bit. In fact, the comment I was replying to can be considered a derivative of the just-world fallacy[1], substituting the hand of the free market for the kind of ephemeral karma that the original just-world fallacy implies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Comp... by haberman on Thursday November 15, 2018 @05:54PM (#18464251)
Your arguments are examples of the false equivalence fallacy. [1] Sorry but I don't have time to provide any more comprehensive of a rebuttal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

(This is why I don't think labeling is a rebuttal.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Comp... by javajosh on Friday November 16, 2018 @03:47AM (#18467448)
I mean, I see what you're doing here, haha, but AlexanderB brings up a good point about asymmetrical debate, where one side says something sloppy, vague and poorly sourced and then expects you to "write a thesis" to rebut. Personally, I think this phenomena really does need a name, less to dismiss it, more to get lazy arguers to stop demanding high quality rebuttals (and at the very least to make the debate easier to walk away from). Fundamentally it's a kind of hypocrisy, but it needs a lyrical name. I like the pattern of naming a fallacy and then opting out that you're demonstrating, but a name could actually be useful. Indeed you could even term it a fallacy, the "vice demanding virtue" fallacy, or something like that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Comp... by oarsinsync on Friday November 16, 2018 @05:42AM (#18467862)
> ...and at the very least to make the debate easier to walk away from...

I find simply reminding myself that duty doesn't actually call[0] to be a very easy way to walk away from any debate that isn't going anywhere productive

[0] https://xkcd.com/386/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Comp... by isoskeles on Thursday November 15, 2018 @06:52PM (#18464681)
People aren’t understanding what you’re doing, apparently. But I appreciate it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘I Don’t Really Want to Work for Facebook.’ Say Some Comp... by paradoxparalax on Friday November 16, 2018 @12:20PM (#18470098)
If you are going this way, someone could very well "adjectivize" your comment with the label "fallacy of fallacies" it fits very well: The fact that the comment you criticize uses a fallacy, doesn't make that comment wrong! Duckduckgo that! edit: ok, i saw now Haberman has already provided a even better explanation about your superficial use of the word "fallacy" in your argument. Check his link, and learn something.
[ Parent | on HN ]