

Why everyone hates Go - NateDad
http://npf.io/2014/10/why-everyone-hates-go/

======
bluehazed
Ah, yet another "I hate Go and everyone else should too" post.

~~~
Dewie
It seems you didn't read the post..

~~~
bluehazed
Whoops, looks like I did misread that! My bad, it was late.

------
Dewie
I don't know what the purpose of such a post is. Well, I have a suspicion,
which that it's just an attempt at discrediting these people by dismissing
their stance as being born from whatever emotions that are considered petty.
No, it isn't framed as a _rebuttal_ of whatever stance they have, so it can't
really be judged on that merit. It's just a statement, not something that is
masqueraded as an argument. But the tactic feels dishonest, in the same way
that blurting out "I think you have a father issues" in the middle of a debate
seems dishonest. No, the statement is not an argument, so it can't be said to
be a ad hominem in the informal fallacy sense. But it is clearly a tactic that
is used to discredit the other party.

In a similar way to the father issues-comment, the motivation for finding out
whatever emotional distress these people are suffering from is not motivated
properly. Instead, the article comes off as just wanting to shift the focus
from whatever Go does or does not have, to what is _wrong_ with the people
that say that Go is _" wrong"_. Again, without any seeming sign or evidence
that that might be a salient point, other than that the opinion is popular in
some circles. I mean, maybe there would perhaps be some obviously bad, and
emotionally motivated arguments that would make someone believe that these
people were under some duress (more than argumentative people in general on
the Internet, anyway). But all I seem to see are technical points - like what
Go does or does not have - and one elitist argument about blue collar workers,
which can just be attributed to elitism and not any particular emotional
state.

Lastly, _you 're_ Eureka moment seem to be more about putting two ideas
together, than to intelligently apply it to some actual case. Sure, the
overall profile might very well match these "haters". But there is no
compelling argument for why _this_ particular emotion and sentiment would fit
_these_ people, since any evidence or anectdote about any such specific
sentiment seems absent. I can perfectly well imagine, say, a handful other
psychological profiles that could be made about this crowd, which would seem
equally plausible.

So, I don't see how this is anything other than an attempt to stirr shit. Too
bad that it didn't seem to succeed, though (around these parts), as language
wars can be quite popcorn-worthy at times.

