4 ms·

The thing is, there are millions of people who are vegetarians and also have not committed genocide. So why compare yourself to Hitler as opposed to Gandhi, Jan

The thing is, there are millions of people who are vegetarians and also have not committed genocide. So why compare yourself to Hitler as opposed to Gandhi, Jane Goodall, etc? Obviously, saying “I agree with Hitler on vegetarianism” does not mean also supporting Nazism or the Holocaust or whatever. But it does invite pretty reasonable suspicion as to why, out of all the vegetarians in the world, you decided to compare yourself to that particular one.

civilized 6y ago
Why did Scott write an enormous FAQ critiquing the neo-fascist NRx ideology in a nuanced way, detailing its reasonable and unreasonable aspects even-handedly? Because he knows people who are drawn to that and is trying to help them, obviously. Even the NYT, in an article on Thanksgiving arguments, has acknowledged that it's much more persuasive to point out where you agree before getting into where you disagree. Some folks seem to think it virtuous to shun their opponents and ignore, or performatively disagree with, 100% of what they say. It isn't - it's just a way to signal tribal loyalty.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I’m not familiar with the source material you’re alluding to. Maybe it’s more nuanced than your analogy suggests. If that’s the case, you basically set up a straw man for your own argument. The point I’m making is that the way in which one makes an argument can reveal more than a strictly logical reading of its premises and conclusion. So it’s possible that even if Scott wrote his whole FAQ and came out against whatever it is, people are still justified in thinking he’s more sympathetic to it than he lets on.
  - civilized 6y ago
    It's possible, but it's misrepresentation to take what people may possibly be justified in believing and externalize it into an action Scott took, of "aligning" himself with Murray. That's dishonest.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I mean, the reporter may be one of those people. Like, to use your analogy, if I were writing an article on someone and they threw references to Hitler into otherwise innocuous topics like vegetarianism? Maybe I wouldn’t describe it as “aligning themselves”, but I’d probably find it suspicious enough to include.
      - civilized 6y ago
        Fine, but would you say the author had aligned himself with Hitler? Because that would be dishonest. The reporter didn't just mention the material, he imposed his own opinion on it without informing his audience. It doesn't matter if you think yourself justified to read between the lines. Reporting should be factual, otherwise it's just your opinion, people can't trust you to help form their opinion, and they have to go to the source material themselves to see what it really says.

civilized 6y ago

Why did Scott write an enormous FAQ critiquing the neo-fascist NRx ideology in a nuanced way, detailing its reasonable and unreasonable aspects even-handedly? Because he knows people who are drawn to that and is trying to help them, obviously. Even the NYT, in an article on Thanksgiving arguments, has acknowledged that it's much more persuasive to point out where you agree before getting into where you disagree. Some folks seem to think it virtuous to shun their opponents and ignore, or performatively disagree with, 100% of what they say. It isn't - it's just a way to signal tribal loyalty.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
I’m not familiar with the source material you’re alluding to. Maybe it’s more nuanced than your analogy suggests. If that’s the case, you basically set up a straw man for your own argument. The point I’m making is that the way in which one makes an argument can reveal more than a strictly logical reading of its premises and conclusion. So it’s possible that even if Scott wrote his whole FAQ and came out against whatever it is, people are still justified in thinking he’s more sympathetic to it than he lets on.
- civilized 6y ago
  It's possible, but it's misrepresentation to take what people may possibly be justified in believing and externalize it into an action Scott took, of "aligning" himself with Murray. That's dishonest.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I mean, the reporter may be one of those people. Like, to use your analogy, if I were writing an article on someone and they threw references to Hitler into otherwise innocuous topics like vegetarianism? Maybe I wouldn’t describe it as “aligning themselves”, but I’d probably find it suspicious enough to include.
    - civilized 6y ago
      Fine, but would you say the author had aligned himself with Hitler? Because that would be dishonest. The reporter didn't just mention the material, he imposed his own opinion on it without informing his audience. It doesn't matter if you think yourself justified to read between the lines. Reporting should be factual, otherwise it's just your opinion, people can't trust you to help form their opinion, and they have to go to the source material themselves to see what it really says.