4 ms·
This is a little bit QED. If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational,
by jacknews 6y ago
This is a little bit QED.
If 'who said it' and 'what views do they hold' is more important than what they're actually saying, then we've become post-rational, and well on our way back to less open and enlightened culture.
- ceejayoz 6y agoIt's not unreasonable to evaluate someone's comments in the context of their past statements on related matters.
- jacknews 6y agoOf course, it's called 'context'. But arguing that previous miss-steps invalidate current arguments is irrational.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 6y agoNo disagreement there. I shared the link to give context.
- Avshalom 6y agoWho said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said.
- seneca 6y ago> Who said it and what views they hold is important for distinguishing between what they technically said and what they actually said. Would you mind clarifying the difference between the two for me? It sounds an awful lot like we're talking about thought crimes.
- scubbo 6y ago(not the person you were replying to, but) "What they technically said" are the words that were actually used. "What they actually said" are the likely intended meaning, since (as I'm sure you would agree) any given moderately-complex sentence could have a number of interpretations, especially in different contexts. "We must protect our people" is a sentence of five simple words, but has a radically different meaning when spoken by: * A warlord invading another country * A fighter resisting an invasion * A doctor speaking about medical treatment In this case, the OP is probably making the (reasonable) point that a speaker who has previously made overblown claims about the racial composition of a country, and has demonstrated xenophobia, can be reasonably assumed to also be on sketchy evidential grounds in his claims about political correctness
- ATsch 6y agoProposing the idea that people do not always make arguments in good faith or say what they actually mean is "thought crime"?
- jacknews 6y agoI think only in the context of identity politics. Those subtleties of messaging can certainly indicate affiliation. But that's exactly what I'm saying. If that's become more important than the actual arguments, were headed down.
- TinkersW 6y agoIn logic it is considered a logical fallacy to attack the speaker rather than the message. It generally indicates that you don't have a rational refute to the argument.
- oliwarner 6y agoIt does give a little context if their support for free speech ends when your skin isn't white; only white British should be able to shape London. Of course he has a point. We should absolutely resist creating thought crimes and police states, but we should also prohibit hateful action. We can do both, sensibly. Shouting about every slippery slope on the way doesn't help anyone.
- shadowgovt 6y agoIt is a failing of some philosophical debate to try and consider ideas in a vacuum. When considering something John Cleese said, one can consider where John Cleese has gone in the 3 years since he said it. In Cleese's case, our understanding of his idea of "political correctness" is informed by his subsequent exiting of the UK because he feels London is "no longer English."
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoThis is totally QED, including the fact that this is the topmost comment now, and the article has been flagged.
- shadowgovt 6y agoUnfortunately, I'm not savvy enough on the lingo to know what "This is totally QED" means beyond Q.E.D. referring to "Quod erat demonstrandum."