4 ms·

I think the very reason why the commenter used the example of anti-Semitism is precisely because, taken on its own terms, it is, a priori, an indefensible posit

I think the very reason why the commenter used the example of anti-Semitism is precisely because, taken on its own terms, it is, a priori, an indefensible position. Refusing to engage with such positions isn't so much righteous as just plain right. And I agree that insults aren't generally effective, rhetorically, but was there any more than an implicit insult in said comment? And do we really want to worry so much about the hurt feelings of anti-Semites? (I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat." FWIW I would, as an example, be happy to engage with people who held political positions opposed to mine in general, and concerning immigration in particular, in arguments concerning economic impact and so forth. But, if those people's arguments can be boiled down to axioms I don't share -- e.g., person X deserves the opportunity of living in the United States because they were born there, and person Y does not because they'd weren't -- then I would choose not to engage with them.)

jerf 7y ago
'I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat."' I'm not claiming it's "fair". I'm claiming the rhetoric still fits. Nothing about it was specific to "anti-Semites". I'd bet at least 5% of the people who read that would agree to the Republican one, if you could ask them, and I feel here on HN I'm being fairly conservative with that number. (Especially if we're specifically referring to politicians, and not the general rank and file, in which case I'm stroking my chin and eyeing the paragraph pretty seriously for both the Democrat and the Republican paragraph... but then, the common factor there is politician, rather than whatever specific platform is in play.) And what that rhetoric is is an excuse. If you don't want to engage, don't, but precisely by your lack of engagement you are in no position to judge anyone's true motives or whether they're just pulling your leg or whatever.

jerf 7y ago

'I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat."' I'm not claiming it's "fair". I'm claiming the rhetoric still fits. Nothing about it was specific to "anti-Semites". I'd bet at least 5% of the people who read that would agree to the Republican one, if you could ask them, and I feel here on HN I'm being fairly conservative with that number. (Especially if we're specifically referring to politicians, and not the general rank and file, in which case I'm stroking my chin and eyeing the paragraph pretty seriously for both the Democrat and the Republican paragraph... but then, the common factor there is politician, rather than whatever specific platform is in play.) And what that rhetoric is is an excuse. If you don't want to engage, don't, but precisely by your lack of engagement you are in no position to judge anyone's true motives or whether they're just pulling your leg or whatever.