4 ms·

> Zamenhof’s optimism isn’t as universally admired as you suggest. Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? I think I made it clear that I adm

> Zamenhof’s optimism isn’t as universally admired as you suggest. Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? I think I made it clear that I admire his optimism, and think it worthy of admiration :-) > some of Zamenhof’s views can be shocking today. That's fine, having admiration for his work and those views of his that I feel have merit don't mean I need to accept absolutely everything the man believed. > Those super-idealistic Esperantists who praised Zamenhof and banged on about world peace, were seen as weirdos and a target of mockery. That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument: "the cool kids are so over Esperanto and world peace. You want to be cool, don't you?" You have critiques of Esperanto and maybe even the idealism that I find endearing. That's fine. Those critiques are valid. I still maintain Zamenhof added more to the world than the critics.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? My mistake. I wished to say that he isn’t so universally admirable. That is, what you see as constructive in his ideals and aspirations, other people today might find destructive. > That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument Well, human beings are social animals, so ad hominem arguments are perfectly valid here. If something feels cringe to a large group of people (even to most of those who one would have expected to be sympathetic), then it can fairly be called cringe. Also, these idealistic, Zamenhof-lauding green-star-flag-waving world-peace types were infamous for often having the least ability to actually converse in Esperanto. They would be visible at congresses, but in a way they were least involved in the actual Esperanto community. You'll also find plenty of arguments that those people actually hold Esperanto back from appealing to outsiders and getting more people involved.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? My mistake. I wished to say that he isn’t so universally admirable. That is, what you see as constructive in his ideals and aspirations, other people today might find destructive. > That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument Well, human beings are social animals, so ad hominem arguments are perfectly valid here. If something feels cringe to a large group of people (even to most of those who one would have expected to be sympathetic), then it can fairly be called cringe. Also, these idealistic, Zamenhof-lauding green-star-flag-waving world-peace types were infamous for often having the least ability to actually converse in Esperanto. They would be visible at congresses, but in a way they were least involved in the actual Esperanto community. You'll also find plenty of arguments that those people actually hold Esperanto back from appealing to outsiders and getting more people involved.