Why does this matter? Because most of the articles claims are based on "spoke to us" quotes from anonymous staffers which cannot be independently verified. So it falls to the reputation of those publishing and their journalistic integrity/process, and at that point I leave it to you to make up your own mind.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...
I understand the argument you're making, and it's not an obvious call, but I think it comes with more downside than upside, at least for HN. It's a trope of tribal internet argument (I mean in general—not talking about you here) to follow a "DAG of shame" in which you hop from any node to the most shameful associated thing, with the intention of discrediting the node from which you started. The problem is that each of those hops loses a lot of information, and one ends up in places that aren't particularly relevant, like whatever that university project is.
What's bad about this for HN is that it makes threads more generic, predictable, and repetitive. It also polarizes discussion along the most intense axis. All of this makes discussion less interesting and more inflammatory.
So while it's not an obvious call (more like 60-40 than 80-20) I think we're better off as a community to resist the habit of replacing topic X with the biggest or most shameful other-topic-Y that the dots connect to. It's not that there's no value in it, but it's the wrong move, given what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
Following standard ideological grooves to discredit the other tribe's sources is not acting from specialist knowledge in any case. The only specialty at work in such discussion is the specialty of internet battle. That's ultimately just a way to turn every thread into a boring, if intense, flamewar.
One of the things that follows from HN's core principle of intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) is the principle of diffs (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). Diffs are what's interesting. This is the positive formulation of the principle that repetition is bad for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
For topics that burn hot, like political/ideological ones, this "diff" principle implies that discussion is most interesting (and therefore best for HN) when people don't take the obvious path from their own initial position—that is, when they don't repeat the reaction that they've had most often before. That is a hard thing to ask on the hottest topics, which tend to melt into a few (well, two) monolithic piles of tar. But I think it follows from the principle.
Here's another thing that I think follows, and is even harder to swallow. To the extent that someone has strong political/ideological views, if they're not seeing articles on HN that they strongly disagree with, at least semi-regularly, then there's probably something wrong with HN*.
That isn't always great for community spirit because it only takes a few disagreeable data points before the mind starts to defend itself with a "this place sucks" reaction (and there are people on all ideological sides who develop such reactions). I wrote about this here, if anyone wants to read more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
* To ward off one common misunderstanding: that is not a Goldilocks argument for split-the-difference centrism! It's an argument for unpredictability. Since centrism is just as predictable as other ideologies, it should encounter just as much to be put off by.
It's possible to give fair hearing without opening the door to bullshit once the bullshitter is known and demonstrated. Editorial voice is significant, as HN's own moderation strives toward and demonstrates.
There are a lot of valid scientific reasons to criticize the CDC's approach to the COVID pandemic, including their own publications[1]. One could also point to the different paths taken by other OECD nations with respect to children and see that the CDC diverged sharply, but presented no data to justify those policies.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/eis/field-epi-manual/chapters/Communicat...
That doesn't sound like something she would say, and I've never encountered her making that claim. I'm pretty sure she got vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well. She does seem skeptical of the ability of the vaccines to prevent infection by newer variants. To some degree, that's probably true right?
"You wear funny hats so you're not a credible expert on waffle irons" would be an ad hominem.[1]
Noting the reputation and past history of a speaker or source, or noting well-known rhetorical red flags (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html) is what we'd now call a strong Bayesian prior. It's not a proof that a source, speaker, document, or publication is wrong, but it's a fairly strong grounds for suspecting that might be the case.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062
And in a world in which asymmetric costs favour bullshit, it's a useful and often necessary approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
________________________________
Notes:
1. In practice, "funny hats" might well be references to non-Western clothing (see The Little Prince for a fictional illustration), or speech, or gender, or religous affiliation (religious exclusion was common in top US universities well into the 1970s). It's still practiced in many regards. What this ignores is the specific capabilities or validity of claims or methods.
No, if you look in the site guidelines you'll see that they say "Most" stories on certain themes are off topic, and that word is there intentionally. It allows for exceptions, especially when there's either something interestingly different about a story, or some significant new information to discuss.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
For past explanations about how we think about this in terms of political topics, see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... There are lots of links there to where I've explained this in detail. If anyone has a question that I haven't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Stories drawn from the arts, like music and also literature and painting, or more generally from history, archaeology, you name it, are most welcome here as long as they offer something of intellectual curiosity. So if HN commenters are pushing back on a story just because it's about e.g. music, that would be bad. (But if it were a gossipy story about a famous musician, say, that would be different.)
Sex is its own special case in all things, so we would have to talk about that separately.
It's in the wikipedia article linked by the GP. To help you out -
In September 2021, concerning COVID-19, she tweeted an article by Glenn Greenwald which argued that proof of a negative test is far more meaningful than proof of a vaccine, contradicting experts who argue that testing is insufficient and should be considered temporary to allow more time for vaccine hesitancy issues to be addressed.
Assuming she hasn't deleted her tweet:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1440687368957095940
She said she was like Galileo here: https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-fa0c-4d08-9574-59f0d3e8c...
She certainly learned a lot at the NYT.
If you want people interacting with other people without tranmitting COVID, what she is is absolutely correct. She said that proving you’re currently negative is more accurate that just asking for vaccine status. This is scientifically correct since people can get reinfected and spread the disease regardless of vaccine status. I just got reinfected with COVID this past week after 3 shots plus prior infection in January. So vaccines do NOTHING in terms of preventing infection anymore. Of course, it protects from serious symptoms but that’s not what they were talking about. It was in the context of effectiveness of vaccine mandates for preventing spread, which it doesn’t.
You are the one spreading disinformation at this point.
> You are the one spreading disinformation
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, so please don't do that.
Your comment would be much better without those bits.
An argument against the idea was almost presented (anonymous staffers whose quotes cannot be independently verified) but was let down by its conclusion (it falls to the reputation.)
There was nothing in OP's argument that contradicted the claims that were made other than those that go against the reputation of the author, ergo even if they are valid, they are definitely _ad hominem_.
That's a fine principle. By extension, it should also be fine for commenters to note facts about sources. You are right that internet discussion can be derailed by the DAG of association, but internet discussion based solely on "what does the article say?" is naïve, amounting to borderline sealioning.
Part of critical thinking and reading is understanding the POV of the author(s) and publisher(s), and considering their motivations and incentives.
If the comment opened with something like "I stopped reading at commonsense.news because Bari Weiss is bad", that'd be a different matter, but they have a substantive critique of the actual article.
Given the weak sourcing, it feels like this article, in particular, flunks the "divisive subjects require more thought and substance" test.
I loathe Bari Weiss, so, grain of salt on all this.
if you replace witch with "unreliable source", a thing that does exist, it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing
if you used it as a stand-in for "unreliable source", it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing, as that is the actual objection here, and your attempt to reframe an unreliable source as "oh people just disfavor them" obviously disregards their unreliability, as well as ignores why the source is disfavored (because it is not reliable)
no, it didn't. most of the objection flowed from the lack of reliability of the source.
But such intellectual dishonesty is discouraged on HN, so one shouldn't.
Criticizing the meat of the article is fine, or pointing out a particular ax the author might have to grind is valid too. I'm taking issue with the criticism that Bair Weiss is a bad woman therefore anything on her site is fake news.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32100018
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...
does the site have a track record of reliable fact checking from their editorial team which reviews submitted content?
You can judge this article on its own merits, it's essentially a one off. It cites some sources, is written by subject matter experts, and is making claims about publicly available data. Do you really need a fact checker to gate keep here? I fail to see how the place of publication has any bearing here on the correctness or soundness of the arguments in the article.
I don't think the DAG-of-shame game really has to do with curiosity about facts. It has to do with tarring ideological enemies. Maybe they deserve it, maybe they don't, but it's not the quality of discussion we want here.
Rather than an ambiguous phrase like "noting facts about sources", I think we're better off applying the clearer distinction between curious conversation and ideological battle. There's a binary distinction between those two things (as binary as these things can get), and we know which one we want on this site.
Moreover, one destroys the other, so it needs to be actively moderated. I don't just mean what moderators do, but the general sense of dampening excesses and avoiding extremes. We want a culture of moderation on HN—not for its own sake, but because curiosity only flowers in a temperate climate.
(By the way, I'm not disagreeing ideologically with any of the comments that I'm objecting to here. This is about discussion quality and attempting to organize the site around one specific value: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....)
For example people in the thread are calling her an anti-vaxer even though she’s on the record encouraging people to get vaccinated.