Personal identity and personal anecdotes have an outsized effect on how convincing an argument is. That's why politicians are always trying to tell personal stories that support their campaigns.

I did that myself on HN earlier today, using the fact that a friend of mine had been stalked to argue for why personal location privacy genuinely does matter.

Making up fake family members to take advantage of that human instinct for personal stories is a massive cheat.

That’s the problem though. You can increase the clout of your claim online with fake exposition. People do it all the time. Reddit is full of fake human created stories and comments. I did it myself when I was in my twenties for fun.

If interacting with bogus story telling is a problem, why does nobody care until it’s generated by a machine?

I think it turns out that people don’t care that much that stories are fake because either real or not, it gave them the stimulus to express themselves in response.

It could actually be a moral favor you’re doing people on social media to generate more anchor points for which they can reply to.

Probably a combination of scale and ease. The people on the internet who try this gambit have to actually write each of their posts to their target audience which acts as a time/money barrier which is now gone. But the bigger one is that inventing these identities convincingly is hard. There's a million little shibboleths, expressions, in-group references that you have to know to not out yourself and if you get right imperceptibly make your argument much stronger. To pick an example that is to me both funny and malicious, the right wing middle aged white suburban men who sometimes get caught pretending to be gay black disabled veterans in internet political arguments have a very real lived experience gap that they have to navigate. But AI is scary good at that kind of fuzzy messy logic and can bridge that gap.

By your criteria you would ignore that entire text because there was no argument only identity.

I'm game if you are.

And yet, when people invent sockpuppets to convince others that being extremely tough on immigration is good actually, it's never a generic white guy, but a first generation legal immigrant persona. Or some kind of invented groups like "X for Trump", where X is the group with very low approval ratings in reality.

It's like the identity actually matters a lot in real world, including lived experience.

On what basis are we to judge the arguments? Have you done broad primary sociological and economic research? Have you even read the primary research?

In general forums like this we're all just expressing our opinions based on our personal anecdotes, combined with what we read in tertiary (or further) sources. The identity of the arguer is about as meaningful as anything else.

The best I think we can hope for is "thank you for telling me about your experiences and the values that you get from them. Let us compare and see what kind of livable compromise we can find that makes us both as confortable as is feasible." If we go in expecting an argument that can be won, it can only ever end badly because basically none of us have anywhere near enough information.

The merit of the argument, in this example, depends on the identity of the arguer. It is a form of an "argument from authority".

The identity and opinion are typically linked in normal people. Acting like the only thing arguments are about are logic is an absurd understanding on society. Unless you're talking about math, identity does matter. Hey, even in math identity matters.

You're confusing, as many have, the difference between hypothesis and implementation.

I'm making a normative statement--a statement about how things should be. You seem to be confusing this with a positive statement, which you then use to claim I'm ignorant of how things actually are. Of course identity does in fact matter in arguments, its about the only thing that does matter with some people apparently. I'm just saying it shouldn't.

The only reason that someone would think identity should matter in arguments, though, is that the identity of someone making an argument can lend credence to it if they hold themselves as an authority on the subject. But that's just literally appealing to authority, which can be fine for many things but if you're convinced by an appeal to authority you're just letting someone else do your thinking for you, not engaging in an argument.