Hacker News Reader

Comment by _kbh_ | Hacker News Reader

> Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period:

> https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared

> International - Path to Peace in Ukraine , Jeffrey Sachs [239]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

> In 2022, he appeared twice on one of Russia government-funded top-rated shows, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory,[73] for which he was criticised by the Wall Street Journal.[74]

I am not sure id trust the opinion of a person who gets platformed by literal Russian propaganda on their opinion on Ukraine.

View on HN

Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism.

I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets?

> Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism.

The fact that Jeffery Sachs even appeared on the show 100% colours his view on Ukraine.

It’s not “anti-intellectualism” to think that someone who went on the “we should nuke Ukraine show” to talk about how Ukraine should surrender, perhaps doesn’t have the most unbiased opinion about Ukraine.

> I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets?

I don’t think they’re comparable really, the show that Jeffery Sachs gladly appeared on has content that is incredibly extreme and feels something more akin to propaganda then any tv I can think of in the west.

> Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism.

I have never seen an internet poster so clearly and succinctly describe the problems with their own arguments. Congrats!

Where did I ever employ ad hominem? Is identifying a conflict of interest forbidden now?

Sachs' appearance on a Russian broadcast is not remotely comparable to the fundamental participation of the Kagans in both ISW and the Ukraine crisis.

You ought to reflect on the fact that you outright reject everything Sachs has to say because he appeared on the wrong TV channel, yet you give me flack for only tepidly endorsing warmonger-run ISW. Is that the kind of toxic monoculture you want to perpetuate on HN?

I have never said anything about Sachs one way or another online or in-person anywhere, ever, in my entire life, because I have no idea who you’re talking about. Your accusation is baseless slander.

> Your accusation is baseless slander.

Rich coming from someone who struggles yet to make a single substantive comment, and can only evade and spew uninformed bile. Not what I'm on HN for. Good bye!

You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that, as you should know because we've given you many warnings in the past.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36843398 (July 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35843312 (May 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30593145 (March 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128649 (Jan 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29629671 (Dec 2021)

I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've been making a habit of this recently—though I did see some bad recent examples that weren't in this thread—but we need you to review the rules and fix this properly if you want to keep posting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

No matter how right you are or feel you are, you're abusing the site when you do this, and contributing to destroying it for its intended purpose. We have no choice but to eventually ban such accounts. Moreover, it isn't in your interests to post like this because, by doing so, you discredit your own position (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I mention this because users arguing for contrarian or minority views often end up breaking the site guidelines like this—it's a known dynamic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), and the only solution I know of is to know this and consciously practice not falling into it.

Please don't break the site guidelines like this, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. And please avoid flamewars and tit-for-tat spats generally, as they aren't what HN is for and destroy what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com