The example "peasant comment" is an informal definition of when a person should consider themselves a socialist, made in response to the blog author's comment about the definition of "Socialism" (in context: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1653525). If you actually read it, he's simply saying "if you have this reaction to this tshirt, you're probably a socialist of some sort", which is probably true.
There is nothing in the comment that should inspire such a mean-spirited ad hominem attack.
The whole thing reminds me of when Zed Shaw went on a rantfest on his site against a "faked" Microsoft employee only to find out that his assumptions were completely off the mark.
As the saying goes, it's better to be nice than to be "right".
I would comment but this guy appears to tick all the boxes in my new checklist I just found on the web: (1) Ignorant, (2) Tribal, (3) Has no power, (4) has a strong opinion, and (5) refuses to consider alternative opinions or change their mind, which means there's no point in bothering.
Exactly the takeaway I got from that entry. It seemed like a really cheap, vacuous way of trying to get the last word while pretending not to get the last word.
If I boil the ad hominem away, the essay points towards an ideal I strive to achieve (also fail to achieve, but my glass is half full).
My ideal is to only respond to posts or comments that are worth an upmod. Downmods are to be imposed silently: If something doesn't contribute to HN, how is it worth any of my words?
If something doesn't contribute to HN, how is it worth any of my words?
Even smart well meaning people are wrong sometimes. And when they are, they are likely to remain wrong until one of their peers takes the time to step back and explain where their facts or reasoning went off the rails.
If something is wrong in a way that doesn't contribute to HN, how is it worth any of my words? Am I supposed to believe that all of you intelligent, well-read folks are going to read it and be seduced by its faulty logic? Most "wrong" comments that don't contribute to HN are simply unfounded claims. I doubt HN will slide into chaos if I ignore them.
There are also arguments that I disagree with that contribute to HN. They're well-reasoned, or they have an interesting perspective. I think they're wrong, but I also think I will learn something by arguing the case. These are worth an upmod and worth some rebuttal.
In the end, if someone posts something that is wrong and not worth an upmod, I think a downmod signals my thoughts on the matter without requiring any explanation whatsoever.
That's not entirely fair. "Weakly held" can mean "based on limited information". E.g. if you are views as credible you can bring to light information that allows the person to change to a more strongly held opinion (that is not "stupid"; yes, your point about conceit does have some merit).
You can also do this sort of thing by providing another way to look at a broadly accepted set of facts.
> There’s obvious debunking that could be done – the first one I’d point out (almost did) is that trade creates wealth, if for no other reason than people like variety. So if you have 10 potatoes and I have 10 carrots, and we swap some of them, we’re both wealthier.
Wrong. No goods created or services rendered = no net change in wealth. What the OP is describing is more like inflation.
(I know, I know. I'm falling into his clever trap. This is why I never joined the debate team in high school.)
Not arguing with people who are unable to competently argue doesn't mean stewing about it, then running to the safety of my blog and writing my own rant.
Some narcissist explaining how smart and special he is in a self-promoting blog post on a personal site (indeed, he is so kind to explain his logic to mere mortals).
That is good for a facebook, but why here?
btw, next time we (ignorant, tribal peasants) probably should ask him to explain the meaning of words 'generalizations' and 'cliche'. ^_^
A troll is someone who is deliberately attempted to derail conversation and waste people's time for his own amusement. A 'peasant' in this guys nomenclature is merely someone who is too opinionated for his own good.
There is nothing in the comment that should inspire such a mean-spirited ad hominem attack.