3 ms·
I would counter that the reason we consider ad-hominem bad is because it enables lazy thinkers to avoid the topic at hand and redirect it to something thats a l
by overgard 10y ago
I would counter that the reason we consider ad-hominem bad is because it enables lazy thinkers to avoid the topic at hand and redirect it to something thats a lot easier to criticize. Thats the path of sophistry.
- woodruffw 10y agoMaybe it does, but that's perhaps not the point. The point, at least in this case, is that the author is counting on being treated as a serious thinker at the table of ideas. He is relying on our good faith to promote ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of exactly the kind of dialogue he's being given on this site. Do not think, should he win, that he will afford you the same charity. Criticizing someone who uses dialogue in bad faith is an exercise in futility. It's better to recognize their actions before hand and label them as such -- a sophist, or a pseudophilosopher, or whatever. That won't stop them from speaking (nor should we want it to), but it gives us the power to redirect dialogue towards more serious participants. Edit: I realize that I didn't make this clear: criticizing the easier thing is not sophistry. At the worst, it's poor argumentation. Sophistry involves using rhetoric to hide intellectual bankruptcy and bad faith.
- overgard 10y agoOk but still youre not arguing what he said, youre arguing what he is. To me, thats the dark path. It's intellectually dishonest. This is what generally annoys me about the social justice scene: its always about silencing or shunning people, never about engaging them.
- woodruffw 10y agoIntellectual dishonesty would be denying it. I make no such denial - I have rejected this person's writings because I can't find any reason to believe that this person entertains discussion (or even the idea of discussion) in good faith. I do not do this out of hand, or on a whim. I've read this person's writings before, and have made a genuine attempt to read him charitably. > its always about silencing or shunning people, never about engaging them. Shunning, maybe. I don't think it's inappropriate to stop a conversation that you know is going to be used as a weapon against you later by someone with truly onerous views. I don't have an obligation to engage with people whose only interest in engagement is to use it a token of their ideological legitimacy. Silencing, never.
- overgard 10y agoYour actions contradict your words though. None of what this guy said about education matters to you because ideas from "this kind of person" is the overwhelming factor to you. Who cares if he has a point about college if he doesnt towe the feminist line, basically.
- woodruffw 10y agoMy actions are commensurate with my words. I don't ask that he be censored - I ask that his status as an intellectual hack be considered, and that we recognize that his writings on education are informed by his much more onerous positions. We don't debate round-earth denialists, since we know that their only motive in debate is to maximize their audience and legitimacy. It doesn't matter whether they're actually talking about their ungrounded views in a particular instance, because all that matters is that they gain legitimacy to be spent later. You're the one who keeps bringing up feminism and social justice, not me. Have you considered that you're trying to imply an ulterior motive that doesn't exist? Every movement has its fair share of people just like Devin Helton.
- overgard 10y agoHeh, the whole "you care more about this than I do" defense. Glad were back in third grade. I feel so young. Seriously your point is essentially elitism right? You can see that cant you? The only people worth hearing are the ones with the "right" views. Weirdly as an adult, I can recognize that the author has some interesting views on education while also having some (alleged) viewpoints about women I dont share.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoso what? Henry ford didn't like the Jews but he sure wasn't an idiot when it came to management.