4 ms·

"The purpose of the sentence is to put them all in to the same category and create a false equivalence." In which category do you think Boghossian was trying t

by Lanzaa 5y ago

"The purpose of the sentence is to put them all in to the same category and create a false equivalence." In which category do you think Boghossian was trying to put Flat-Earthers, Christian apologists, global climate skeptics, and Occupy Wall Street advocates? My understanding is that they are all in the category of guest lecturers. That doesn't seem like a false equivalence if they were all guest lecturers.

scaramanga 5y ago
As explained in the comment you're replying to. It's a far-right extremist tactic to normalize their belief systems. The tactic is to put everyone together into a "diversity rainbow" of political beliefs where whatever strand of basic human decency you oppose, you can find someone else who is so extreme, vigorous, and pernicious in their beliefs that even fascism seems moderate. For example, in the status quo of early 20th century America, a racist might say: "Well, some radical negro extremists even think that black men ought to be allowed to marry white women. But on the other hand, some people think all the negroes should just be exterminated. As a liberal, I think everyone should be free to speak their minds and hold rallies for whatever viewpoint they like, as long as they uphold all the public order laws." So the racist occupies an important position, sat in the middle, defending liberal democracy from two extremes. Power stays where it is, thank you very much. And if people try to get racist rallies banned, then I can fend that off by claiming it to be a fundamental attack on freedom of speech, rather than what it actually is: upholding law and order. The fact to be obscured is that there is a fundamental dissimilarity between the "two extremes". One is just a call for basic human needs and rights to be respected, the other demands a license for some people to run roughshod over the needs and rights of others. Edit: So yes, in that sentence he is trying to put them in to the category of "guest lecturers." But he is doing that not as a banal exercise in set-comprehension, it's part of a political argument / narcissistic tantrum.

by Lanzaa 5y ago

scaramanga 5y ago

As explained in the comment you're replying to. It's a far-right extremist tactic to normalize their belief systems. The tactic is to put everyone together into a "diversity rainbow" of political beliefs where whatever strand of basic human decency you oppose, you can find someone else who is so extreme, vigorous, and pernicious in their beliefs that even fascism seems moderate. For example, in the status quo of early 20th century America, a racist might say: "Well, some radical negro extremists even think that black men ought to be allowed to marry white women. But on the other hand, some people think all the negroes should just be exterminated. As a liberal, I think everyone should be free to speak their minds and hold rallies for whatever viewpoint they like, as long as they uphold all the public order laws." So the racist occupies an important position, sat in the middle, defending liberal democracy from two extremes. Power stays where it is, thank you very much. And if people try to get racist rallies banned, then I can fend that off by claiming it to be a fundamental attack on freedom of speech, rather than what it actually is: upholding law and order. The fact to be obscured is that there is a fundamental dissimilarity between the "two extremes". One is just a call for basic human needs and rights to be respected, the other demands a license for some people to run roughshod over the needs and rights of others. Edit: So yes, in that sentence he is trying to put them in to the category of "guest lecturers." But he is doing that not as a banal exercise in set-comprehension, it's part of a political argument / narcissistic tantrum.