[Siddarth1977]

This isn't "context" this is literally the definition of an ad hominem attack. "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument"

If universities have a massive, bloated and overly expensive legion of administrators, does it matter if the person pointing that out is doing so because they want to reduce the burden on students who are forced to take out massive loans or to reduce the burden on the taxpayers who ultimately pay those loans when the government "forgives" them?

[mikebenfield]

I don't have infinite time available. I can't read every article posted on HackerNews and carefully consider all its points. Knowing this author's affiliation is a big clue to me that this might not be a key source I want to rely on for this topic. Obviously this doesn't actually refute the author's points, but I don't care. This is enough information for me to decide to spend my time elsewhere.

[haberman]

I understand the need to have heuristics like this, but the hazard is that it allows bad behavior to go unchecked. If people with "good" affiliations circle the wagons, ignoring or downplaying the issue, how will bad behavior ever get corrected?

[mcrad]

Tribalism is part of the cause for the dysfunction described in the article. Highly recommended.

[igorkraw]

Yes. Because they aren't attacking bloated bureaucracies that have been sufficiently captured and privatised, and the offered solutions might be subtly biased. It's only an ad hominem if after using the heuristic and critically checking any hidden bullshit the personal bias of the interlocuteur you stick to your hostility even if you don't find anything. Otherwise it's just context that helps you think

[topaz0]

Conflicts of interest are definitely important context for me. You can jam that into the definition of ad hominem, I guess, but this isn't really a debate, so I don't see how it's relevant. Maybe if they'd said "this article is wrong because they're funded by so and so". But they didn't.

[pasquinelli]

logical fallacies are interesting. in logic, it doesn't matter what the objects are, just give them letters for names. a logically valid argument always holds no matter what you substitute the variables for; logically invalid arguments don't always hold no matter what you substitute the variables for; a logical fallacy is when you think an invalid argument is a valid one.

there's a tendency to fall into a fallacy of thinking an argument must be wrong because it's invalid. in real life, everyone does actually care what the objects being discussed are, and restricting yourself to logical validity would constrain your thinking to the point of uselessness. by dismissing a logically invalid argument out of hand because it's logically invalid, you're falling into your own fallacy, because to assume what's being claimed is false just because what's being claimed doesn't hold for everything itself doesn't hold for everything. for instance, if i tell you not to believe someone's claim because they cheat on their spouse, you can't assume they are lying about that claim, but you also can't assume they aren't lying about it.

so if someone tells you a person is motivated by greed to make an argument, yes, it isn't necessarily true that their argument has to be wrong--here's a cookie--but that also doesn't mean they aren't decieving you. what do you know about the subject other than what this potentially interested party just told you?

anyway, pay attention to when you fall for the fallacy fallacy, it's a window into your own ideology.

[topaz0]

Agreed, and worth pointing out that the op did not even claim that the argument was wrong -- just that there might be reason to look for bias in it.

[kilolima]

Identifying logical fallacies is a 1-pass spam removal system. Identifying and blanket dismissing arguments based on logical fallacies reduces the low-effort noise and allows the worthwhile arguments to be heard.

[rektide]

Ad hominem is a problem when you are arguing with people who argue in good faith & who can demonstrate unbiased willingness to engage in open discussion, who can hold & respect a broad set of interests when they argue.

But when the person you are arguing with has a permanent bent that will distort & warp every argument, it's just a defense of open society to call the person out on that bias, on their forever grinding that axe.

This mention was an excellent & valuable warning to me. That it happens to resemble an attack to some people, is, in my view, far secondary to the broad public good this post served.

[pessimizer]

> Ad hominem is a problem when you are arguing with people who argue in good faith & who can demonstrate unbiased willingness to engage in open discussion, who can hold & respect a broad set of interests when they argue.

No, this is changing your standards of logic to support intolerance. You don't get to decide people's motivations against their will, or accuse them of bad faith without an example of the display of that bad faith.

[1123581321]

How is a comment inciting fear and anger, in order to protect rent seeking that harms education, a public good?

[jtolmar]

A source speaking contrary to its own biases is very likely to be notable, and a source speaking along with its biases is essentially information-free. This implies that understanding a source's biases is crucial context to evaluating what they have to say.

[vegetablepotpie]

As a former student and Pell grant recipient, I never felt like conservatives had my back. I remember a Republican state legislator saying, while I was in school, that all students should be required to spend some minimum amount of money per year, regardless of aid, because “we needed skin in the game,” as if many of us we’re not perilously close to dropping out due to expenses.

This is important because many of these conservative groups focus on making education cheaper for students, and their families, who are already wealthy. This should be acknowledged when looking at their solutions because they don’t count many Americans as their stakeholders.

[rdtwo]

I guess I’ll take that why shouldn’t you have skin in the game even if it’s a small 2 k loan per year with deferred payments?