Tom actually asked a few questions in his post, and then gman showed up. He also asked us to deal nicely with this person in other parts of the forum.
That’s an authority fallacy. A book can be xenophobic, white nationalist and/or stupid no matter what the NYT says. It’s about what the book says and how that fits certain ideological positions.
And I have not read the book, but going by excerpts I stand by my opinion. We have explained why the book seems very xenophobic, and instead of trying to explain why it (in your opinion) isn’t, you revert to authority fallacy, feigning ignorance and saying “labels” don’t matter.
But we are not using labels, we are using words that signify specific ethical positions.
Just so everyone is clear, NYT called it incoherent, flawed, harmful, coded, and a xenophobic fantasy. Take that as you will since the paper didn’t technically use the words “white supremacist” to describe the book. As for The National Review, Murray, the author, is a frequent contributor, so I’m not sure why that endorsement is even valid.
Should we deride National Review as white supremacist and ignore it henceforth?
No, unless they start to systematically recommend white nationalist books. Doing it once where there’s also a conflict of interest is just misguided.
I have no opinion on National Review other than to say their endorsement of a book written by a frequent contributor isn’t the ringing approval you think it is.
Anyone else starting to think that the publication that gman writes for is The National Review?
It’s why I was following the thread. I keep hoping it would get back to that, because that conversation is one I’m interested in having. Not the 47th re-run of the Gman Show.
Perhaps it’s time for me to write this one off and just mute the thread. :)
OK good, just checking. To answer your other question: I think the criticism that the book is xenophobic is fair, I guess, but you’d need to articulate what you mean by that, because the label is unclear. The book is not founded on a fear of all immigrants. It is specifically alleging that certain patterns of migration, in particular refugee migration, are having tangible negative effects on the culture of Europe. That is not a fundamentally xenophobic position.
Anyway, the specifics of the book don’t really belong in the thread. We agree that people who endorse the book are not all white supremacists and shouldn’t be silenced. Progress.
No, probably some publication where they think National Review is like the Atlantic.
I disagree.
Well fine, but I’d much rather hear why, than just a label. Labels are easy and mean different things to different people.
Dealing with elaborate sophistry on a second language is too much this late. I’m off, at least for now.
I assumed Tom would return at some point too.
Me too. Punching out for a while, as this is not good for my health.
Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful!
Why the fuck are you guys engaging? You are essentially training a dangerous AI to become more efficient.
He is not going to change, despite what he says.
I didn’t know it either, but in retrospect his level of “slickness” in always having a talking point ready points to someone doing that sort of thing professionally.
I disengaged because I have more enjoyable and profitable uses for my time than banging my head against an adamantium wall of ideology.
Glad I don’t have to scroll past those posts anymore.
EDIT: Never mind about that last part, I see that I was mistaken!
I found that assuming good intentions of people on forums, makes me happier and causes me less stress. But when I’m shown to be wrong, I see no reason to engage anymore
As the zealot said to the pervert,
