> Analyzing an opinion piece through the lens of previously expressed opinion pieces is anything but an ad hominem attack.
The problem is that original poster did not provide any actual analysis or reason to support their assertion as this is not a famous or well-known enough person (at least within HN) to know automatically what their other opinions are on other matters. For this reason, I stand by my statement that this is just an attack on the author and not the ideas the author is communicating.
> It's the only possible way to understand an opinion piece.
No, the only way possible to understand an opinion piece is to read the text while keeping in mind what organization decided to publish it.
Let’s be honest here: this statement is just a ex post facto justification for the ad hominem. Perhaps a you’ve heard it’s cousin, the classic “no offense but, <something offensive>,” or even, “I’m not racist, but <something racist>.”
This is not true of anything. There are always multiple perspectives and ways of understanding things. We short-change ourselves and others when we think otherwise.
The problem is that original poster did not provide any actual analysis or reason to support their assertion as this is not a famous or well-known enough person (at least within HN) to know automatically what their other opinions are on other matters. For this reason, I stand by my statement that this is just an attack on the author and not the ideas the author is communicating.
> It's the only possible way to understand an opinion piece.
No, the only way possible to understand an opinion piece is to read the text while keeping in mind what organization decided to publish it.
Let’s be honest here: this statement is just a ex post facto justification for the ad hominem. Perhaps a you’ve heard it’s cousin, the classic “no offense but, <something offensive>,” or even, “I’m not racist, but <something racist>.”