News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A Wikipedia editor's campaign to discredit anti-war campaigners (2018). Parent comment

Re:A Wikipedia editor's campaign to discredit anti-war campa... by boomboomsubban on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @04:20AM (#26789543)
The term "ad hominem" had changed beyond it's literal Latin translation, but I guess I can swap it to "your entire argument was an association fallacy."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Wikipedia editor's campaign to discredit anti-war campa... by sgift on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @05:05AM (#26789846)
That would require the GPs comment to be false. RT and Sputnik are Russian government propaganda pieces. Anyone who denies that either lies to themselves or to others.

CNN and NYT may write/send things you don't like, but they are free from government interference.

(Also, the quality of CNN and NYT is far higher, but that's a different point)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Wikipedia editor's campaign to discredit anti-war campa... by boomboomsubban on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @05:29AM (#26790007)
>That would require the GPs comment to be false

Their argument was an association fallacy regardless of the truth of the stated position. I mentioned Russia's poor record with liberal values, but that doesn't mean RT reporting this story means the topic isn't worth considering.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A Wikipedia editor's campaign to discredit anti-war campa... by CRConrad on Saturday April 17, 2021 @02:13PM (#26846238)
It has? Who says it has? As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't.

These constant attempts to redefine the meanings of accepted and well-understood words are annoying as all hell. Stop trying to fuck up language all the time, damn kids. If you need a word for some specific meaning of your own, then make up your own damn word. (And now get off my lawn!)

[ Parent | on HN ]