Stu Doesn’t Understand the Concept of Death
But to what extent is he poisoning impressionable minds, really? And what’s the harm? I think that’s at the heart of your project here. This isn’t life-and-death, obviously, so what are the stakes?
The easiest argument to argue is “Who cares?” and it’s tempting to just ask “Who cares?” or “What’s the harm?” and move on. Unfortunately I can’t.
Okay, if you insist.
The harm is the same as Sarah Palin and other conservative pundits pushing the “Death Panels” hysteria when the health care plan was getting off the ground. They successfully turned “death panel” into a buzz phrase and rallied a mass of ignorant, misinformed support around it. M.G. Siegler in this case is trying to push an anti-Google opinion with another misinformed, overly-heated opinion about something.
No, it isn’t. Like I said before, equating ignorance of one thing to ignorance of health is an utterly ridiculous, ill-formed argument. Stu didn’t understand this basic fact yesterday in his post, nor on Twitter:
Stuyvesant Parker
@nickheer you really pop off the rails on your latest reply to me, which is why i won’t be responding to it on my site
I asked “Where?”, to which he replied:
Stuyvesant Parker
@nickheer a couple times. linking to reddit as an unclear ad hominem attack. jenny mccarthy past celebrity vs current. other ways, too. in general if your only response to a point is “So?” then you don’t really have an actual response
To which I replied…
Nick Heer
@stuyparker I admitted the ad hominem, as it was a bit of a joke re: your sense of taste. The “so?” response was because you didn’t have a point, as far as I could tell. Also, your first few paragraphs are still stupid.
To clarify, the Reddit post was showing Stu’s decidedly trashed room. It was a low-blow, I admitted in the post, but I don’t consider his sense of taste to be a decent metric. The “So?” response was covered deeper by Max Jacobson:
Here’s the thing, Stu: I want you to read things closer and allow for nuanced perspectives.
- Fact one: Those are vapid horrible litte shits
- Fact two: they are consumers showing some demand and brand awareness
More than one thing can be true, Stu, even at the same time. And, yeah, lessons can be learned from that. That’s why Gruber is worth reading. Instead of having the shallow reaction that most people have, he skimmed a little insight off the top. Nice! Well done, Gruber! He didn’t condemn them as vapid horrible little shits because that’s what everyone else was already saying, and it was kind of obvious.
Anyway, “So?” is a more succinct reply, but that was my thought on that.
Precisely. And the reference to the first few paragraphs was in response to Stu’s claim that the opinions of Gruber, et. al. are comparable to that of homeopaths, something which is easily discredited.
Stu, your arguments suck a big one. There are many ways to disagree with Gruber, but you are picking discussion points that guarantee nobody will take you seriously.
Source: daringfireball.net
8 Notes/ Hide
-
ricktdotorg liked this
