▲ 41 ▼ Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla (lunduke.locals.com) submitted 3 years ago by Engywuck@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml 48 comments fedilink hide all child comments The author may be a right-wing fellow. Nonetheless, the data he exposes are taken from official Mozilla docs.
[–] peotr26@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 years ago (1 child) Lunduke is known to have been defending quite extremist (on the right side of the political spectrum) view point on certain subjects. As such, many people, me included, do not really like him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml -7 points 3 years ago (2 children) It's still just ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] darq@kbin.social 27 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument. But it's not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it's not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism. Edit: Typo. Also changed "valid" to "sound". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 years ago (2 children) ad hominem: in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] darq@kbin.social 12 points 3 years ago And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote. People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That's different to ad-hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stillwater@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You really want to take the position that narratives can't be skewed by the overall ethos of the author? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Saying that someone leans right is considered an attack on their character now? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml -7 points 3 years ago (2 children) It's still just ad hominem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] darq@kbin.social 27 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument. But it's not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it's not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism. Edit: Typo. Also changed "valid" to "sound". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 years ago (2 children) ad hominem: in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] darq@kbin.social 12 points 3 years ago And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote. People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That's different to ad-hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stillwater@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You really want to take the position that narratives can't be skewed by the overall ethos of the author? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Saying that someone leans right is considered an attack on their character now? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] darq@kbin.social 27 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Ad hominem applies to arguments. The source of an argument does not affect the soundness of that argument. But it's not a fallacy to question an overarching narrative based on the source. If a person keeps selectively choosing facts and twisting words to forward a specific narrative, it's not fallacious to view what that person says with skepticism. Edit: Typo. Also changed "valid" to "sound". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 years ago (2 children) ad hominem: in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] darq@kbin.social 12 points 3 years ago And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote. People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That's different to ad-hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stillwater@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You really want to take the position that narratives can't be skewed by the overall ethos of the author? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 years ago (2 children) ad hominem: in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. If you think his narrative is skewed and based on selectively chosen facts and twisted words, you could correct that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] darq@kbin.social 12 points 3 years ago And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote. People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That's different to ad-hominem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stillwater@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You really want to take the position that narratives can't be skewed by the overall ethos of the author? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] darq@kbin.social 12 points 3 years ago And other people are doing that in the comments. I addressed your point about ad-hominem specifically. So your response is kinda irrelevant to what I wrote. People are questioning the narrative the author is painting based on their motivations. That's different to ad-hominem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stillwater@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) You really want to take the position that narratives can't be skewed by the overall ethos of the author? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago No. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Saying that someone leans right is considered an attack on their character now? permalink fedilink source parent