Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the you-said-it dept
This week, our winning comment on the insightful side comes in response to the president’s recent threats against NBC, with Geno0wl racking up the votes to take first place:
Could you even imagine
Trump’s base brush this off as a flippant remark(like they do for everything he does from his bull pulpit).
But flip back a year and imagine the shit-fit the right would be throwing right now if Obama said this exact same thing about Fox News. It would be insanity. Hell imagine if Obama said literally half the things Trump says now. They would be foaming at the mouth.
In second place, we’ve got a comment from Baron von Robber in a thread on that same post, but it’s a versatile one that works in many contexts:
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” – Hitchens’s razor
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more comment from that post, in which crade brings some perspective to the problems that do exist with the news media:
Yes, there is something wrong, but there are also ways to correct it without government interfering. News organizations rely on their reputations. Simply outing them (you know, actually pointing out specific things that are fiction or lies, and proving so) would easily destroy their reputation for people who are seeking truth in news.
People who are seeking echo chambers or who are willfully ignorant are another story, but that’s their right as free people correct?
The answer has to be in teaching the population critical thinking and why the objective truth is valuable, the consequence of echo chamber isolation / willful ignorance.
It’s worse if there is deliberate systematic targeted misinformation.. (Like to manipulate the U.S. population to do whatever Russia wants for example)
Next, we have an excellent comment from aerinai that came in response to Twitter’s blocking woes, but which taps into a larger and very important idea that we’ve discussed before — that the root of many of these problems is the ascendance of platforms over protocols:
Unfortunately, platforms are the sexy, new thing that everyone loves. Close down the hatches and let a single company create a ‘platform’.
Email doesn’t have this problem because it is a Protocol. Twitter has the problem because it is a platform. BitTorrent doesn’t censor applications, because it is a protocol. The Apple App Store has a problem because it is a platform.
So the more we feed into Platform culture, the more you will see people putting arbitrary control over how people use it. Not necessarily good or bad; it is their right as the platform curator, but we just need to understand curators will censor at their whims because reasons.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner comes from Toom1275 in response to another commenter pointing out that, while it’s great the Internet Archives found a way to liberate some works via a never-before-used piece of copyright law, it’s just further evidence of how wholly broken the system is:
“You’re giving him CPR for a bullet wound to the head?!”
In second place, we’ve got a response to a particular commenter, which I won’t bother explaining because you’ll know what it’s about — and if you don’t, it’s really not worth learning:
“I tried to post the same comment 9 times and I’m so confused why my comments won’t pass the filter!”
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of comments from regular fixture Roger Strong, starting with one more response to Trump’s NBC comments:
This is so insane and stupid it’s as if the US Patent and Trademark Office were put in charge of the executive branch.
And next, a wonderful summing-up of the latest attempt by science publishers to stop researchers from sharing their work:
“Dinosaurs Against Unauthorized Comets”
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
Hitchen's Razor
_What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” – Hitchens’s razor_
Since this statement itself has been asserted without evidence. I propose to dismiss it in accordance with its own logic.
Hitchen’s razor is in fact a logical paradox.
Re: Hitchen's Razor
however I propose keeping it, instead of dismissing it, because it seems like it’d be so very useful.
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
however I propose keeping it, instead of dismissing it, because it seems like it’d be so very useful.
and the people whose assertion you use it on could of course do the same themselves.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
It’s dependent on somebody making a first assertion without a reference, link, ect.
IE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Re: Hitchen's Razor
But a razor is not an assertion of a fundamental “truth”, nor is it a statement that purports to be inherently logically unassailable – a razor is a philosophical principle that one can choose to employ or not, as a means of “shaving off” (thus the name) unlikely explanations and ideas.
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
and one which many very serious mathematicians actually avoid using – see for example this comment about Kurt Godel (from the Wikipedia page about the Continuum hypothesis).
"Gödel was a platonist and therefore had no problems with asserting the truth and falsehood of statements independent of their provability."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
Re: Re: Re: and one which many very serious mathematicians actually avoid using
Which doesn’t stop any one else from using it, though. That’s why mathematicians make a clear distinction between “theorems” and “conjectures”.
Re: Re: Re:2 and one which many very serious mathematicians actually avoid using
As I pointed out above, the problem with Hitchen’s razor is that it belongs in the same class of assertions that it purports to dismiss.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hitchen's razor ... belongs in the same class of assertions that it purports to dismiss.
Can you prove that?
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Go figure, a person who was willing to make flat assertions without being able to prove their accuracy wouldn’t care for the idea that if you can’t support your claims then they can be dismissed out of hand. Imagine that.
Hitchen’s Razor isn’t making an ‘assertion’ to dismiss, it’s not saying ‘X is true/exists’ or anything like that, it’s more an observation that a claim that lacks evidence is not a claim worth taking seriously.
If you want to say that that is itself a claim that could be dismissed as lacking evidence, I’m curious as to how often you yourself would be/are willing to accept claims without supporting evidence, and/or how serious you take them.
If, for example, I were to flatly state as fact that the earth is not a sphere(ish), or even flat, but in the shape of a pyramid, how much time would you spend on that statement, and what would your response to it be?
Would you accept it at face value as true?
Would you (as I would hope) ask why I would make that statement, and would you be satisfied if my response to your [Citation Needed] was not to provide you with supporting evidence but simply a repeated assertion that I know the earth is shaped like a pyramid, and you just need to believe me?
Re: Re: Re:2 Hitchen's Razor
This is exactly why I’m a fan of astronomer Francesco Sizi, a contemporary of Galileo who argued that Jupiter can have no satellites:
No need to take anything at face value. (Other than the value "seven" derived from your face.) Just clear reasoning based on existing proven facts.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hitchen's Razor
"I can’t see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it’s covered with a dense layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet, it’s probably a swamp. If there’s a swamp, there’s ferns. If there’s ferns, maybe there’s even dinosaurs."
Observation: I can’t see a thing. Conclusion: Dinosaurs.
-Carl Sagan, on the detriment of drawing conclusions.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
…Why would you expect Hitchens’ Razor to apply to advanced set theory?
Re: Re: Re:2 Hitchen's Razor
Hitchens invented his razor just to make it easier to argue his own positions. This usually also involved a strawman in place of his opponents actual arguments.
Of course it fails when you apply it in serious mathematical or philosophical discussion.
I also note that here Hitchens’ razor is inaccurately expressed
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
since any proposition CAN be asserted without evidence including propositions that are true.
Interestingly it also flatly contradicts another popular saying around here:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Re: Re: Re:3 Hitchen's Razor
No, it doesn’t. Hitchen’s razor merely states that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In other words, that saying is a somewhat narrower reformulation of Hitchen’s razor. They are in no way incompatible.
Re: Re: Re:4 Hitchen's Razor
“Hitchens’s razor is actually an English translation of the Latin proverb “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” (“What is freely asserted is freely dismissed”), which was commonly used in the 19th century.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Re: Re: Re:3 Hitchen's Razor
Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
wtf has it got to do with maths? There is no statement of truth or falsehood in it.
It’s axiom used to avoid pointless arguments, not an argument or a fact in itself. It’s not really that different from negative proof. So you state A = B, but without any proof that A = B. “A” may very well equal “B”, but without a measure to validate it against it’s not useful and not worth resources arguing.
If it has any flaw, it’s in that an absence of immediate proof is not, in itself, a reason to not consider it. Indeed, if you were to do a statistical analysis of it demonstrates that it needs to be considered in order to be discounted.
The problem then arises that statistical improbabilities still do happen, so even if they seem impossible they must still have a finite improbability…
I think I need a fresh cup of really hot tea.
Re: Hitchen's Razor
I propose to dismiss your dismissal.
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
and I will (recursively) dimiss your dismissal and all future dismissals that you might make.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Too late. I already dismissed all of yours while you weren’t looking.
Re: Hitchen's Razor
""I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don’t. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. "
-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Hitchen’s discussions and commentaries about God sounds much like 2 dimensional beings discussing 3 dimensional beings.
You simply lack the capacity required to understand it.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
While Trump and his voters have proven themselves to be one-dimensional, as they continually demonstrate they lack the capacity to understand anything.
Re: Re: Re:2 Hitchen's Razor
The problem is that is also true for Hillary voters. This is not just a problem for people on the other side.
It is a universal problem for most humans period.
Re: Re: Re:3 Hitchen's Razor
Partisans who try to screech that their failings only apply to the other side are only advertising for he other side.
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
Says the guy who made up some imaginary being without any shred of evidence. Impressive.
Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
We don’t refer to crosswalks as “zebra crossings” ’round these parts, so for years I thought that punchline referred to an actual zebra crossing. Like, he couldn’t see the zebras because he couldn’t tell black from white?
Re: Since he actually published it three times in three places…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
…and it is notable enough for it’s own Wikipedia page,
I’ll accept that enough evidence is asserted. ;]
” Could you even imagine
Trump’s base brush this off as a flippant remark(like they do for everything he does from his bull pulpit).
But flip back a year and imagine the shit-fit the right would be throwing right now if Obama said this exact same thing about Fox News. It would be insanity. Hell imagine if Obama said literally half the things Trump says now. They would be foaming at the mouth.
“
What’s funny is that, while this is true, it is also true in the exact opposite direction. This here is part of the vicious “my party” sycophancy that goes around.
Before you can see clearly enough to remove a spec from their eyes, first remove the spec from your own!
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
The difference, of course, being that Obama didn’t say these things, while Trump did.
Seriously, how do people keep missing that this website and the commenters on it did speak out when the Obama Administration was doing bad things?
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
Because to admit to that would undermine the idea that several people seem to hold that TD is just so terribly biased such that it would never say anything bad about certain individuals, parties and/or companies(conveniently ignoring the articles that do just that).
Admitting that Obama was called out when he did stupid things would force them to admit that maybe, just maybe the criticisms levied against Trump are valid and due to his actions rather than party, and if that is the case it makes it much harder to brush them aside with a ‘Well you’re only being so critical because it’s Trump/a republican‘.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
Convenient to dump posters you don’t like into the Trump supporter pile.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
No, there’s a history here. No matter how wrong Trumps actions, someone will come along and make an “Obama did it too” claim.
Often the claim has no credibility. Or they’re blaming Obama for something enacted long before he entered the White House.
Often too it’s a credible claim, but with the accusation that Techdirt ignored it. In reality Techdirt will have been highlighting and criticizing it all along.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
He is right. There are things I liked about Hillary, Bernie, Obama, Bush, and gasp Trump.
The problem here is just like Trump. I cannot stand the hypocrisy enough to even hold my nose during a vote for a single one of those corruptions. The only retort you have in your bag of tricks is to be dismissive about claims of the odors you leave behind.
Sure… you took a shower, you just don’t understand that what you showered in was just as dirty as what the voters you have been whining about showered in.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
If you object to Trump and didn’t object to Obama, then you’re a hypocrite. You are likely fine with the given shenanigans so long as you think they benefit you. Or Just you don’t really care about the underlying principle.
I argued against the expansive use of executive authority during the Obama administration. I bluntly told people it would be used against them by “the next guy”. They blew me off.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
“I bluntly told people it would be used against them by “the next guy”. They blew me off.”
Indeed, they were warned by many folks. They only offered derision in response. Now that they are getting back what they have given, they sure went up another octave. They are only making caricatures of themselves and do not even seem to know it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
Funny thing, this blog made the same warnings, just not in a strident and confrontational fashion as you do.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
I had some objections about Obama. Going after whistle blowers for example. And for not prosecuting those who turned the country into a torture state, from the torturers up to the White House.
Of course prosecuting whistleblowers is something Trump and most Republican candidates demand. Most 2012 and 2016 Republican candidates – including Trump – were shaking their pom-poms for renewed torture. It’s hard to find a valid complaint about Obama that doesn’t also apply equally to Republicans.
But your false equivalency to Trump? That takes a special blend of dishonesty, stupidity and delusion.
Re: Re: Re:5 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
“It’s hard to find a valid complaint about Obama that doesn’t also apply equally to Republicans.”
But when people do that same to you, what is your response?
Yea… pedal your false honesty elsewhere.
As a person that watches both of the major parties, all I see is hypocrisy. People spewing hate while accusing the other side of the same.
Re: Re: Re:6 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
So naturally you chose a forum with an unusually non-partisan, non-party-aligned audience on a blog that frequently criticizes both parties to scold people about it.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
“Admitting that Obama was called out when he did stupid things would force them to admit that maybe, just maybe the criticisms levied against Trump are valid and due to his actions rather than party,”
There is not a single thing in my post that makes the claim that Obama was never called out. I am only responding to the part where an obvious partisan attack was unfairly leveled against Trump voters.
I said the statement was true, but what makes it unfair is that it implies that non-Trump voters somehow do not suffer from the same delusional issues. This was a classic example of hypocrisy.
The problem here is that TD and many people here constantly bash the republicans and Trump voters for the very sins they commit themselves. All I am saying is that you are guilty as well. YOU ARE NOT BLAMELESS!
Your response each time is to place me in the camp you don’t like so you can justify your hate against me. You need to stop being lead around by the nose and stop letting the “party sycophancy” drive you around.
Think for yourself! If you are the same as your enemy, then what moral authority do you have to call out their sins? Many of you here are Trump voters… you just see Hillary or Bernie as your Trump. None of you give a single flip about integrity, you just care about dissing the other side in hateful speech while complaining about their hateful speech.
As a person that does not like either party, let me tell you that you deserve each other. You divisive natures will drive this nation in despotism, and you are all okay with that so long as the despotism takes form under a leader you like. It’s only bad if you don’t like the leader.
The stench left behind from this double party bickering is foul in the extreme and somehow both sides have gotten so used to retching over the stench of the other side that they no longer even recognize the stench they leave in their wake!
Just as America has become the enemy it defeated in WWII each party becomes the enemy it defeats each election.
Or as George put it…
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
The constant bickering and divisive party sycophants around here are helping in destroying the nation. Stop, stop it now and join the so few of us not held down by some political party membership card where if I am not on your team then you are my enemy to be ridiculed, belittled, dehumanized, or marginalized!
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
…who are you talking to?
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
I speak to all people that make hypocritical claims about the another party… claims that also hold true for their own.
I have watched both sides with equal vigor giving their own a pass while indignantly accusing the other side.
Just as Trump drains the swamp… into his own swamp both the republicans and democrats against him try to maintain their swamps. There is some small hope from both the parties to change things, but it appears that these new “parties” will only grow more stagnant and hateful than the dregs that spawned them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
I speak to all people that make hypocritical claims about the another party… claims that also hold true for their own.
So, to a vague hypothetical group, not to anyone actually here listening to you then.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm
That has nothing to do with my post.
I am only pointing out the hypocrisy. Instead you choose to deflect what I said and twisted into another Us vs Them partisan issue… as usual.
You lack a significant amount of intelligence if you believe I am pro Trump based on my post.
Re: Re:
Do you design your sentences around using the word sycophant? Or do you just shoehorn it in every third one or so?
Re: Re: Re:
“Sheeple” is out of fashion. Someone taught the alt-right a new word.
Re: Re: Re: "Sheeple" is out of fashion.
Still a killer track …
Re: Re:
And what advantage do we have to gain here by doing…whatever sycophancy you think we are doing?
Re: Re: Re:
None, there is no advantage. It is a disadvantage and I hope to dissuade folks from riding the division train down against their political opponents.
Every time you participate in the bashing of one side like we are really on different teams, you succeed into falling in the trap set by shadow players that need you to be distracted against an illusory enemy. Just like war, someone has convinced you that going to kill the enemy is how you survive, and if you don’t join us to kill them, then you need to die or receive punishment too!
And the more you allow these shadow players to usurp your voices by playing into their scheme you encourage those you speak against to join up on the other side if for nothing more than to defend themselves. You are not leaving them a path of peace with you, you are instead telling them that there is NO PATH for peace and that if they wish peace, they need to end you to obtain it.
As a person not happy with either side pointing out their hypocrisies I find myself in the everyone hates me position. So be it! At least I will perish without having been the pawn of an evil shadow player that has convinced me that I should live in fear or hate of my neighbor just because they voted differently than I.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if you’re not American, given the international nature of this site by the fact that it’s available on the Internet? Are we all at fault too, because we might have had some influence or a lack of influence in a country miles away where we have no political or monetary clout?
Are you the same guy who complains every time the writers talk about or don’t talk about regulation?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
looks like whoever it is got all of your goats… wow. Thin skinned is the word. folks can dish, but can’t take.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, just not American. The thickness of my skin doesn’t matter because by not being American I don’t have skin in the game.
Honest question, since the original poster doesn’t account for the international audience. Are we all at fault, then?
Re: Re: Re:
But Sycophancy is one of the "three" Words that I Know!
Every Nation eats the paint Chips it Deserves!@
No amount of false equivalencies will make hypocracy claims truthful.
Heh. I’m reminded of a line from Ringworld: “You put a tourniquet on his NECK, doctor?!”
Re: Re:
Puppeteer?