[jonathanlb]

I agree to some extent, but your comment has several major fallacies:

Slippery slope, e.g., acknowledging privilege or past wrongs leads to a dangerous path, such as the Holocaust.

False dilemma, e.g., either one must give away their wealth or not feel guilty, when there are other options.

Genetic fallacy, e.g., implying that the actions of ancestors should not be held against someone because they are not responsible for their ancestors actions. Even if someone didn't choose to have a certain privilege, that does not mean that it does not exist.

Strawman Fallacy, e.g., presenting a misrepresenation of the idea of collective guilt and suggesting that it is the same as Nazis killing Jews.

Like I said, I agree to the extent that guilt can be unproductive. If one feels that, though, about systemic injustices that allowed them to attain a privileged position in life, it could be seen as an invitation to address those and/or current injustices.

[wickedsickeune]

As a fellow person who also likes to notice fallacies, I'd advise you not to point them out, because it usually has a negative effect on convincing your interlocutor.

[ngc248]

Not only that, convo becomes robotic. When the poster talked about nazis killing jews, we understand what he meant based on the context. Heck you can list fallacies for any argument.

[uxcolumbo]

What is a different / better way to convince someone?

How would you have approached it?

[OJFord]

Not GP but IMO it's a lazy and boring way of disagreeing. Declaring something 'a strawman' on HN is so common and not entirely done I think (not that I'm particularly familiar) with technical accuracy, it's like screaming 'fake news' with a veneer of intelligence.

GGP comment here was maybe better than most for actually relating the alleged fallacies to what the parent had said directly, but I think it'd be better/politer/more honest good discussion to phrase it like 'this is not the same because blah blah. This kind of argument is known as a blah fallacy.' or not even mention the fallacy, because does it really matter? Unless that's what you want to talk about instead of the actual topic.

It's a bit like saying 'I went through your comment looking for grammatical errors: 1) split infinitive, e.g. blah; 2) missing possessive apostrophe, e.g. blah's blah not blahs blah, ...' versus talking about the content instead and perhaps politely mentioning it. Just a bit 'ha, got you'.

[tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa]

For anyone reading this, just note that when you employ these tactics the value of accuracy gets lost.

Because that's often what these things are, a test of the values considered important. If accuracy is not important, by all means, don't point out the flaws but rather concentrate on making the other person feel good. Just understand what it is you're doing.

But ask yourself this: How do you arrive at the truth if pointing out inaccuracies is not valued? At that point, why are you even engaging?

Something to think about.

[OJFord]

I'm not saying don't point out inaccuracies, I'm saying there are less combative ways of doing that than 'here is a list of the named fallacies in your argument'.

[uxcolumbo]

Thanks.

I think you're right, this style of discussion can appear confrontational and focusing on scoring points.

I didn't see it at first - I was just parsing the words without imagining how it might be perceived.

[program_whiz]

Just to point out most of these "fallacies" you describe are just you disagreeing in this case. You don't believe ascribing guilt or privilege based on ancestry will lead to the holocaust again so you say its a slippery slope, however there are many historic examples where ascribing guilt or blame based on ancestry has justified mass killing (jews, kulachs, china purge, etc.). Im not saying the GP is righr just that these arent necessarily logical fallacies, just your interpretation (but being justified by dubious claims of invalid logic). He did not say "this will inequivocally lead to the holocaust" which is a strong logical claim that coukd be fallacious, but instead, "this kind of thinking is similar to thunking that justified the holocaust". Actually in a strange way you strawmanned the GP argument by not observing context and nuance.

And just as an aside it feels a bit hollow to list it out like this. It reads like a code review from the junior that just finished reading a book on design patterns or code smells. Direct engagement and counterpoint addressing the substance of the argument could be less gimmicky.