News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking by tpoacher on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @02:22PM (#27121574)
I really hate the word "debunk".

The word derives from "de" and "bunk" -- an older word effectively meaning "bullshit". In other words, to "debunk" a claim means "to remove all the bullshit" from the claim.

If a claim or argument is indeed, for all intents, a "bullshit argument", then it is quite fair to "debunk" it. But this isn't how most people use the word.

Most people seem to say "debunk" as a means of saying "refuted", or worse, "rebutted".

Just because an argument can be refuted doesn't mean it was a bullshit argument. Quite often an argument is perfectly valid, and only fails when the premises fail to be 'proven' conclusively. Not to mention that more often than not, 'proven conclusively' is a highly subjective notion to begin with.

To say an argument was "debunked" is effectively a very rude way of dismissing / diminishing the person making the argument as being full of bullshit, when in fact their argument may have been a perfectly valid one, and possibly quite sound even, and may even have been useful in furthering the conversation.

Re:Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking by tlb on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @02:27PM (#27121655)
I only use the word in the sense you describe.

The research in the article is about false political news, most of which is proper bunk. Occasionally, false political news arises from a genuine misunderstanding, but most of it is deliberate propaganda intended to smear the other side.

Re:Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking by tpoacher on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @02:29PM (#27121677)
Indeed. I have no qualms about using the word in its intended use. Even if I do consider it a bit unnecessarily rude.