I think you, too, are falling for the trick he was describing, of taking someone at their word who is manifestly unwilling to be held to their own word. It's hard to read 'geofft's comment and think of a way he could have been clearer that he was not calling commenters anti-Semites.
I feel like I’m being daft here. I’m going to beg your patience and ask a
favor: if there’s something I’m saying that you agree with, or that you at
least don’t think I’m wrong about, would you point it out? I can’t tell I’m
completely off base or am just missing subtle (or somewhere in between).
I agree that 'geofft is making very clear from the outset that the quote
is being used to illustrate the tactics only, that no parallel is to be
drawn with respect to anti-Semites. I also know that I sometimes accidently
miss points when reading someone’s comment, particularly when they’re
discussing another side of the topic under discussion. Gotta fight against
my tribal bias, and understand that others may be trying–and sometimes
failing—to do the same.
Here’s how I view the discussion between 'geofft and 'piotrjurkiewicz.
- 'geofft makes a point, illustrated with a quote by Satre describing a
rhetorical tactic of anti-Semites.
- 'piotrjurkiewicz behaves exactly as Satre describes.
- 'pjc50 falls for the rhetorical tactic Satre describes.
- 'geofft points this out
- I argue that by choosing different words to make the same point
Satre does might defend 'geofft from the tactic.
From my point of view, 'piotrjurkiewicz is being either uncharitable, or
misreading 'geofft by accident or ignorance, most likely the first. I could
point this out, but if 'piotrjurkiewicz is arguing uncharitably, it isn’t going
to make a difference, and most likely antagonize them, effectively feeding the
troll. I see 'geofft as an honest, good faith interlocuter, so it’s more worth
my time to engage with 'geofft. I’ll learn regardless, that something about my
assessment about 'geofft or the discussion was mistaken—the latter appearing
increasingly likely.
You’re implying that regardless of the words 'geofft uses, 'piotrjurkiewicz
is going to uncharitably interpret them, correct? Which does again parallel
the point of the Sartre quote. I can see how your assessment that I might
be falling for this is accurate, and I do purposefully leave myself open to
that to some extent, at least until I see that that’s the case (I hope). By
choosing words that are less likely to distract from the point I’m trying to
make, hopefully I can make that assessment more quickly, by pushing them to
the point where “they will abruptly fall silent”, giving them the least
amount of room to maneuver and play.
I can also see how this can be folly. Looking up where this quote is taken
from (“Anti-Semite and Jew”), I also find this quote: “The rational man
groans as he gropes for the truth; he knows that his reasoning is no more
than tentative, that other considerations may supervene to cast doubt on it.”
I understand that viscerally.
My head’s spinning a little bit, having a discussion about discussion tactics
about discussion tactics—have I incepted enough? Maybe Sartre was trolling? ;)
Thank you for pushing me on this. I’m learning, er, groaning a lot.
