[geofft]

You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously.

In any case, the rest of Sartre's essay is completely on point. Among other things, it addresses this exact ability to believe a thing and its contradiction, and make it only a problem for the people who are trying to argue against them in good faith - it's quite scary how accurately Sartre in 1944 was able to understand these modes of trolling (and trolling is really the term for it). Harvard has the first chapter online:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic468841.files/Sart...

There's an interesting question in there of what, exactly, the anti-Semite is going to do once they're not able to hate the Jew. That's the only thing Sartre couldn't see in 1944, but he did see that it's not about anything the Jewish people are or do, but as the other. Today we've declared anti-Semitism unacceptable, but we've got enough other others.

[grzm]

If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.

[tptacek]

I don't think you read his comment very carefully. He was quoting Sartre, about trolling. He doesn't get to choose what Sartre wrote about!

[grzm]

I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context, that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out:

You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection.

If the goal is to have a useful discussion, if you can come up with different quote or analogy that does not include anti-semitism, in my opinion the discussion would be better served.

[tptacek]

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.

[grzm]

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.