4 ms·

That does not seem like a fair assessment. The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ not „ignore the article“. I think it is worth keeping in mind. The article

by vlz 4y ago

That does not seem like a fair assessment. The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ not „ignore the article“. I think it is worth keeping in mind. The article still stands and the questions it raises against the current state of the authors field are still valid. Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides.

nosianu 4y ago
> The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ But nothing of substance, only innuendo. What does that particular phrase even mean? It stops before actually saying anything. > Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides. Exactly what I mean. What is your point, when you actually apply it to the current blog post and discussion? Also, "always two sides" does not mean two sides worth spending equal amounts of time on. We've also had "two sides" for climate change and vaccines since forever, basically, for any topic you can find people with a different opinion. But knowing that alone is kind of useless. No, pointing to somebody's origin or affiliations alone does not provide any value. It can be - if you start from there and become more concrete with respect to the specific text we are looking at. Strangely enough, this kind of statement also is the exact opposite of what is the purported goals, e.g. being against "racism": Mere affiliation is seen as sufficient as an argument against somebody and all their work, without even the tiniest bit of effort at actually looking at what they have. I sure don't mind somebody pointing out such affiliations - but I would at the very least want to see at least a token effort of them looking at the evidence in front of them in form of the text being discussed.
tgv 4y ago
My comment wasn't about being two-sided; it's more againts being single-sided. "Keep in mind" combined with "pushing agendas" means: you cannot trust the message, because it was written to manipulate you. It's guilt by association.

by vlz 4y ago

nosianu 4y ago

> The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ But nothing of substance, only innuendo. What does that particular phrase even mean? It stops before actually saying anything. > Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides. Exactly what I mean. What is your point, when you actually apply it to the current blog post and discussion? Also, "always two sides" does not mean two sides worth spending equal amounts of time on. We've also had "two sides" for climate change and vaccines since forever, basically, for any topic you can find people with a different opinion. But knowing that alone is kind of useless. No, pointing to somebody's origin or affiliations alone does not provide any value. It can be - if you start from there and become more concrete with respect to the specific text we are looking at. Strangely enough, this kind of statement also is the exact opposite of what is the purported goals, e.g. being against "racism": Mere affiliation is seen as sufficient as an argument against somebody and all their work, without even the tiniest bit of effort at actually looking at what they have. I sure don't mind somebody pointing out such affiliations - but I would at the very least want to see at least a token effort of them looking at the evidence in front of them in form of the text being discussed.

tgv 4y ago

My comment wasn't about being two-sided; it's more againts being single-sided. "Keep in mind" combined with "pushing agendas" means: you cannot trust the message, because it was written to manipulate you. It's guilt by association.