3 ms·
I'm in the same boat as you with regards not not having read anything else he's written (I glanced at a few of his political essays this morning but didn't read
by corin_ 13y ago
I'm in the same boat as you with regards not not having read anything else he's written (I glanced at a few of his political essays this morning but didn't read any thoroughly), so this comment is a general thought not specific to Greenspun.
Surely every article/essay has the potential to be read differently in the context of who wrote it. If it was on the subject of, for example, Israel/Palestine, would you not want to know that it was a Palestinian campaigner who wrote about their suffering, or a Zionist who wrote about their acts of terrorism? Whether you agree or disagree with one side or the other, context is often relevant.
- macspoofing 13y ago>Whether you agree or disagree with one side or the other, context is often relevant. Is it really, in this case? If Greenspun was a Neo-Nazi who was serving time for killing 12 people, would it really have changed the content of this review? I understand it would probably colour your perception of him, and certainly that's what the OP was going for, but I still think that this review stands on its own.
- corin_ 13y agoI haven't actually read this review, it's not something that interested me, but I do find that (for better or for worse) I judge content on its author. Yes, if he was a Neo-Nazi who had killed 12 people, it would make me lose respect for his opinions.
- macspoofing 13y agoAlright. Do you want to go and research Philip Greenspun before you decide whether or not you agree with his review?