Is This Crazy Rumor the Platonic Ideal of the Men’s-Rights Internet? | Hacker News Reader

Is This Crazy Rumor the Platonic Ideal of the Men’s-Rights Internet?

nymag.com

12 pointssmacktoward8 comments

This article is a turd. The only redeeming quality it has is at all is that it aligns with ideas that are politically popular. That shouldn't give it a pass.

Are the allegations on ESR's blog a bit far-fetched? Sure! But poor writing like this is the kind of thing that pushes the kind of people who care about good arguments away from trusting people aligned with that political position (even if the listener themselves is also aligned!). As the rhetorical and tactical measures become more about winning than providing a strong arguments for your positions... more and more people are willing to entertain the allegation published by ESR!

The article at the link is just a rant, the actual news is in the esr's blog: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907. tl;dr it's an allegation that feminists activists are looking to falsely accuse Linus Torvalds and other prominent male developers of sexual assault.

I use to think that any article should only be evaluated based on their worth of its arguments. I now check the biases of the person and organization which publishes it, before reading.

The difference of this approach from ad-hominem is that it's more a mental "test" than a "shortcut". "How intellectually honest is this person or organization? If new evidence or fact comes to light which disprove to some degree the position they are maintaining or expounding-- will they change their mind? Or at least be silent and move on to something else?"

If "not really", then I pretty much ignore most words they have on that position. Taking partisans too seriously entails investing extra-thought into separating the spin from the "truth". Put another way: reading RushLimbaugh.com to determine what's wrong with America would probably melt my brain.

Yes, everyone has biases: the key, at least for political understanding, is to determine how biased they are before engaging.

Agreed. Its popular for publications with a goal, to write pseudo-scientific articles. They adopt the forms of science or investigative journalism. But they cherry-pick to suit their agenda. Its vital to know who is writing something, before you can digest it responsibly.

That photo (look how dumb and ugly men are!) and the first sentence is kind of distasteful. Even if she's right that's a really unfair way to start.

I hope Eric Raymond doesn't read your comment!

I know such a dick move, maybe they should use an actual photo of Eric Raymond instead. /s

There's a Men's-Rights Internet? What women do I sue for hiding it from me all these years?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com