Comment by johnnyanmac
2 days ago
You forgot the ones happened to be the reason I responded:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Those points have nothing to do with tone policing, so I don't understand the objection.
Flagging https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46768275 is completely inappropriate (I do not accuse you specifically). It does not in any way violate HN guidelines. The comment it was responding to clearly did, and was correctly flagged and killed as a result.
>Those points have nothing to do with tone policing
Dismissing an argument over rhetoric instead of rebutting the main point is about as close to a formal definition of tone policing as you can get. Do I need to expand on why that is the case? I've already explained why I don't think "chaotic" is extreme rhetoric to describe this situation.
> The comment it was responding to was correctly flagged
As was yours. Will you self reflect on why that is?
> Dismissing an argument over rhetoric instead of rebutting the main point is about as close to a formal definition of tone policing as you can get.
Correct. But making a shallow dismissal, or failing to steelman, is not "dismissing an argument over rhetoric". But that's also irrelevant, because I did not make a shallow dismissal or fail to steelman. I was not responding to the argument at all; I was just (in debate terms) raising a point of order.
> why I don't think "chaotic" is extreme rhetoric to describe this situation.
Now you are the one failing to steelman. The quote also describes the federal executive as "lawless" (clearly it is still very much bound by law, and has even restrained itself from invoking powers that many people have argued they have clear justification for: in particular, the Insurrection Act of 1807) and says that they are "Hell-bent" on "creating" this chaos (assuming the motivations of others is fundamentally unkind and rarely a good debate strategy; and it's clearly contradicted for example by observing that ICE operations are much smoother in every state other than Minnesota). And the overall effect is to assume the consequent and exclude those who object to TFA's narrative.
> As was yours. Will you self reflect on why that is?
I already self-reflect when I post. I came to the conclusion that my comment should not be flagged, and I never post something that I think should be flagged. Having read your response, and going back through the chain, my opinion in this case remains unchanged.