Does that apply when Kittamaru or Bells are calling people "intellectually dishonest" simply for disagreeing with them? They do that a lot. They've done it to me.
I am curious. We hear these complaints a lot, and they have some common themes, such as coincidence with politics and such general complaint. Please help us understand what you mean specifically by documenting at least one occasion in which you were called "intellectually dishonest", and "simply for disagreeing with" Bells or Kiitamaru, or anyone else you might wish to direct that accusation at.
Please understand, over the years we've heard the "simply for disagreeing" line over and over and over again, and it never quite works out. In most of those cases, the problem is that the complaints demand constricted free speech; that is, the one gets to say whatever, nobody else should retort, and when they're told this is unfair or unacceptable, they compain of being censored simply because the authority disagrees with them. We have, in another thread, a consideration of what the internet now calls "ad hom", and I'm always puzzled by what seems a very detached relationship between that version of "ad hom" and other aspects of our discourse. I mention this in part because I'm still puzzling over how trying to suppress even the slightest appearance of insult according to that many other people's perception might help post quality. The overlap with your question has to do with a context of what happens if we simply grant relief according to the complaint, and as with the question of getting rid of "ad hom", this says nothing about anything else.
That's why context is important; for as much as we hear this bit about how it's just because someone disagrees, what it really seems like is most of the complaints have to do with someone's insistence on the right to post deliberately offensive bullshit and not have to face any criticism.
• • •
Come on James. I had formed the impression that you were one of the good guys and had a sense of humour.
I don't know how James feels about those appeals, but they always read hilariously to me.
I think sexual harrasment is way to important an issue to be used as a "bandwagon" event, leading to witch hunts. I think we should be careful what we describe as sexual harassment.
I think sexual harassment is way too important an issue to be exploited for "bandwagon" sloth, leading to unprepared defenses of sexual harassment that defenders pretend to not understand, thus leading to complaints about how people are being mean just because they disagree.
One thing you might wish to bear in mind, having not been around much, is that part of the reason people are focusing on each other is that many of those relationships were set. One of the reasons people fight like they do is that it's all they have left. The Administration wanted policies enforced in a way that happened to discourage civil discourse, educated debate, or general truthful merit, thus protecting, say, advocacy of crime as long as the victims met certain criteria.
Can you answer a question for me, please: Would you believe me if I said, "I wanted to know what this General Relativity thing is," and then presented my results, having surveyed the literature, and concluded that GR is false because, you know, this YouTuber says so, and this one quotes this other person, and what's that, a question, well, here's another YouTuber who says GR is wrong. That is to say, at some point, just statistically speaking, shouldn't I be able to find a source that isn't an editorial predisposed against General Relativity on the basis that scientists are pampered, privileged bigots deliberately spreading untruths?
Now, then, what if what I'm arguing against isn't General Relativity, but, say, the prospect of anti-Semitism, because, you know, that's way too important to use as a bandwagon issue, right? And what if all I come up with are neo-Nazi YouTubers?
Would criticize? What are you going to criticize? Will it matter if the resolution is that you're just going out of your way to stifle discussion because you disagree with that member, and you need to stop being so mean as to call Nazi sympathy by its name?
Oh, and here's the twist: Say all you want about politely and calmly countering each point, because that will be a fallacy; history shows quite clearly that doesn't work. Those people aren't here to discuss, they're here to promote. And when they get called out on what they're pushing, they bawl about ad hom, or try to tell us about how we should be careful when opposing discrimination. Quite frankly, there comes a point at which it all looks like defense of bad behavior.
And, you know, but for these trolls, maybe there was a day when Yazata's line would have passed muster, but like so much of that changing propriety, we're finally getting around to certain standards precisely because bigots want them for protection. No, seriously, fellatio as prostitution once upon a time was a fine joke, but, for instance, the studs and stallions of my generation started bawling about rape and sexual harassment, about how the men are the real victims, and now what was a joke between colleagues is now strictly inappropriate. Make sure to thank them.
