4 ms·

There is always subtext. There is no need for mystical allusions. You are welcome to go back and re-read his writing with a more critical eye and decide for you

by memexy 6y ago

There is always subtext. There is no need for mystical allusions. You are welcome to go back and re-read his writing with a more critical eye and decide for yourself what you notice.

Frampy 6y ago
Proof I was right - you don't like SA therefore his writing is bad and it has a secret evil message (never mind you couldn't even understand his point when you tried to write like him in another thread) and a 'critical' reading would validate your view, which is entirely unfalsifiable.
- memexy 6y ago
  Which of my points is unfalsifiable? And where did I try to write like him?
  - Frampy 6y ago
    Your attempt to rewrite the 'when I was young and stupid' excerpt, where you missed half the point of the piece, excised most of the words and declared him clearly not a good writer. Despite his writing being the reason he was even getting a nyt profile in the first place. It can't be that his writing speaks to people in a way you don't get, he's obviously a bad writer and all of those public intellectuals who are supporting him are... Not critical enough? As for unfalsifiable, you claim there are dog whistles in every second sentence SA writes, and dog whistles are, by definition, unfalsifiable. You can claim anyone can see it if they look critically enough because if someone suggests they have looked critically and found nothing, you can simply claim they didn't do it right and mosey on. Dog whistles are also, by the way, fundamentally incompatible with the principle of good faith you claim to want to prosper. It's an interesting conceit, I'll give you that.
    - memexy 6y ago
      > As for unfalsifiable, you claim there are dog whistles in every second sentence SA writes, and dog whistles are, by definition, unfalsifiable. You can claim anyone can see it if they look critically enough because if someone suggests they have looked critically and found nothing, you can simply claim they didn't do it right and mosey on. Dog whistles are also, by the way, fundamentally incompatible with the principle of good faith you claim to want to prosper. It's an interesting conceit, I'll give you that. I don't know what a "dog whistle" is or what it's used for. I explained exactly what I meant by "coded" and I made a point about emotionally charged language by rewriting quoted texts to demonstrate good writing vs bad writing. It's all clearly stated in all my posts. You are welcome to actually quote me and demonstrate directly instead of mis-directing and mis-characterizing what I said / wrote as being a "dog whistle".
      - Frampy 6y ago
        Look up the definition of dog whistles then, and discover they mean 'talking in coded language that means one thing to an outside audience and another to the inner circle'. Pretending you don't understand a decades old political term so you can ignore an argument is also not going to engender the good faith dialogue you claim to desire, by the way. And what was your point about emotionally charged language? Aside from that you don't like it?
        memexy 6y ago
        It's good to know I re-invented a concept that had been in politics for over a decade. Independent discoveries are always fun. I was just making observations but it's good to know what I observed is called dog whistling. So that's a correct assessment then. Scott's writing is full of dog whistles.
        Frampy 6y ago
        Yes what a remarkable cavalcade of coincidence your life is. And why look at that, you were so busy marvelling over your ability to engage left wing dialogue in the past five years without ever hearing of dog whistles that you plum forgot to address anything I said! What a lark. Let's just pretend I said SA's writing is full of dog whistles and didn't say 'dog whistles, aka coded language, is entirely unfalsifiable and in direct opposition to the principle of good faith argument' - after all, we are already pretending to be engaging arguments in good faith.
mst 6y ago
If "critical eye" means you're attempting to read his work through a critical theory lens then it would have been helpful had you mentioned that in advance so that those of us using other lenses could've been aware that you were doing so. Much confusion might thereby have been avoided.
- memexy 6y ago
  It's incumbent upon whoever is confused to ask clarifying questions instead of making insinuations about the inadequacy of the person making the argument. If you were confused then you should have asked clarifying questions instead of arguing with incomplete information.
  - mst 6y ago
    So are you operating on a critical theory lens or not?
    - memexy 6y ago
      I don't know what critical theory is and what it is used for. I use basic reasoning and back up what I say. I used the word critical as in "critical thinking" (unrelated to any actual academic theory of criticality). It's quite simple really. I'm not motivated to make a point other than clarify my own reasoning and I expect the same in return. When someone doesn't return the favor and act in kind then I assume they're operating in bad faith and they have no intention of making an actual argument to clarify but instead they seek to obscure and confuse. You have demonstrated several times and very clearly you were not interested in a reasoned argument even though I gave you the benefit of the doubt by outlining what I thought and engaged every one of your examples in good faith. You did no such thing and went out of your way to shape and bias the discourse in your favor. So I'm no longer interested in arguing with you or making any more attempts to clarify my reasoning. If you want to engage further then you can reach me by email or on keybase. I'm no longer interested in being a prop for your performance in front of a group.
      - 6y ago

by memexy 6y ago

There is always subtext. There is no need for mystical allusions. You are welcome to go back and re-read his writing with a more critical eye and decide for yourself what you notice.

Frampy 6y ago

Proof I was right - you don't like SA therefore his writing is bad and it has a secret evil message (never mind you couldn't even understand his point when you tried to write like him in another thread) and a 'critical' reading would validate your view, which is entirely unfalsifiable.

memexy 6y ago
Which of my points is unfalsifiable? And where did I try to write like him?
- Frampy 6y ago
  Your attempt to rewrite the 'when I was young and stupid' excerpt, where you missed half the point of the piece, excised most of the words and declared him clearly not a good writer. Despite his writing being the reason he was even getting a nyt profile in the first place. It can't be that his writing speaks to people in a way you don't get, he's obviously a bad writer and all of those public intellectuals who are supporting him are... Not critical enough? As for unfalsifiable, you claim there are dog whistles in every second sentence SA writes, and dog whistles are, by definition, unfalsifiable. You can claim anyone can see it if they look critically enough because if someone suggests they have looked critically and found nothing, you can simply claim they didn't do it right and mosey on. Dog whistles are also, by the way, fundamentally incompatible with the principle of good faith you claim to want to prosper. It's an interesting conceit, I'll give you that.
  - memexy 6y ago
    > As for unfalsifiable, you claim there are dog whistles in every second sentence SA writes, and dog whistles are, by definition, unfalsifiable. You can claim anyone can see it if they look critically enough because if someone suggests they have looked critically and found nothing, you can simply claim they didn't do it right and mosey on. Dog whistles are also, by the way, fundamentally incompatible with the principle of good faith you claim to want to prosper. It's an interesting conceit, I'll give you that. I don't know what a "dog whistle" is or what it's used for. I explained exactly what I meant by "coded" and I made a point about emotionally charged language by rewriting quoted texts to demonstrate good writing vs bad writing. It's all clearly stated in all my posts. You are welcome to actually quote me and demonstrate directly instead of mis-directing and mis-characterizing what I said / wrote as being a "dog whistle".
    - Frampy 6y ago
      Look up the definition of dog whistles then, and discover they mean 'talking in coded language that means one thing to an outside audience and another to the inner circle'. Pretending you don't understand a decades old political term so you can ignore an argument is also not going to engender the good faith dialogue you claim to desire, by the way. And what was your point about emotionally charged language? Aside from that you don't like it?
      - memexy 6y ago
        It's good to know I re-invented a concept that had been in politics for over a decade. Independent discoveries are always fun. I was just making observations but it's good to know what I observed is called dog whistling. So that's a correct assessment then. Scott's writing is full of dog whistles.
        Frampy 6y ago
        Yes what a remarkable cavalcade of coincidence your life is. And why look at that, you were so busy marvelling over your ability to engage left wing dialogue in the past five years without ever hearing of dog whistles that you plum forgot to address anything I said! What a lark. Let's just pretend I said SA's writing is full of dog whistles and didn't say 'dog whistles, aka coded language, is entirely unfalsifiable and in direct opposition to the principle of good faith argument' - after all, we are already pretending to be engaging arguments in good faith.

mst 6y ago

If "critical eye" means you're attempting to read his work through a critical theory lens then it would have been helpful had you mentioned that in advance so that those of us using other lenses could've been aware that you were doing so. Much confusion might thereby have been avoided.

memexy 6y ago
It's incumbent upon whoever is confused to ask clarifying questions instead of making insinuations about the inadequacy of the person making the argument. If you were confused then you should have asked clarifying questions instead of arguing with incomplete information.
- mst 6y ago
  So are you operating on a critical theory lens or not?
  - memexy 6y ago
    I don't know what critical theory is and what it is used for. I use basic reasoning and back up what I say. I used the word critical as in "critical thinking" (unrelated to any actual academic theory of criticality). It's quite simple really. I'm not motivated to make a point other than clarify my own reasoning and I expect the same in return. When someone doesn't return the favor and act in kind then I assume they're operating in bad faith and they have no intention of making an actual argument to clarify but instead they seek to obscure and confuse. You have demonstrated several times and very clearly you were not interested in a reasoned argument even though I gave you the benefit of the doubt by outlining what I thought and engaged every one of your examples in good faith. You did no such thing and went out of your way to shape and bias the discourse in your favor. So I'm no longer interested in arguing with you or making any more attempts to clarify my reasoning. If you want to engage further then you can reach me by email or on keybase. I'm no longer interested in being a prop for your performance in front of a group.
    - 6y ago