And? Doesn't mean it's not true. It just means you can't use it to win an argument against a nerd.

> Doesn't mean it's not true.

True, it just means that it's idiotic, rather.

oof I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy, let me just consult the manual here...

Keep us updated.

Speaking of fallacies, it's complete nonsense (not the only example of it from that source) to say that the comment in question was a True Scotsman Fallacy (or any other kind of fallacy). Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is very different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Right, saying that only programmers who don't solve genuine problems and instead merely follow trends and treat it as fashion (and are thus no true scotsman) care about syntax, implying their opinion doesn't count, is definitely not a no true scotsman fallacy. It totally doesn't suggest that true scotsman heed the notion that syntax doesn't matter, and that so by definition, anyone else is just some goober following the cargo cult, so they don't count. [0] /s

And so no,

> Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is very different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

I categorically disagree that these would be meaningfully distinct claims, as the "[only] a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge" bit specifically invokes the implicit disqualification of said Scotsman from being counted as a True Scotsman.

> not the only example of it from that source

Pretty ironic of you to say that.

[0] the literal definition of the no true scotsman fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Only a certain kind of Hacker News would make this reply

And not a word of the response is correct ... it simply repeats errors in logic and fact and a complete failure to understand the salient features of a No True Scotsman fallacy (which is a denial that someone who is by definition a Scotsman is not a TRUE Scotsman ... a distinction that is purely pejorative with no actual semantic content; saying that a "certain sort" of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge indicates disdain for such Scotsmen but is not any sort of fallacy), and throws in some snarky projection ... but my comments are devoid of irony.

If it's a fallacy then it's nonsensical to call it true. But in fact that comment was not at all a True Scotsman Fallacy, or any other kind of fallacy. Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is vastly different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

It's really more of an inversion. No true Scotsman is "No Scotsman would ever (commit murder)" "What about (Scotsman that committed murder)?" "Ok, no true Scotsman would commit murder"

Whereas this follows the form more of "Murder is bad" "I dunno, a lot of Scotsmen commit murder" "Ok, but no true Scotsman would commit murder"

It's the same (annoying) assertion, but the fundamental argument is about the value of murder, not the category of "Scotsmen," so it's not the same extremely obvious fallacy of redefining the literal topic at hand whenever a counterexample is presented.

It's no true scotsman if you just resolve their indirection: no true scotsman would care about syntax, because a true scotsman is someone who doesn't care for such a thing - otherwise, they're people who GP finds to be of low value, and thus their opinion doesn't count, as they're no true scotsman, not true programmers.

It's why I called it an outright textbook example: it's an appeal to purity, where purity is determined in a circular way - the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy, as far as I could find and understand it.