So who gets to identify objectively when a purity spiral exists? Almost all people in a "purity spiral" have the impression they're applying the appropriate amount of "purity".
Are you trying to assert that there is no such thing as a purity spiral because there is no objective definition of one, and no authority that can definitively identify one?
No. I'm trying to decide whether I should trust the people that are in a "purity spiral" who say they're being reasonable, or the people gesticulating at the knitting community and saying there's a purity spiral there because they said so.
Who is more credible? How are we sure which one is?
If it was possible to objectively decide who is more credible then the world would be a much simpler place. You'll have to decide for yourself who to trust
That's honestly a very postmodern view! I think given that the article linked doesn't have any experimental or quantitative basis, I'll choose not to trust it.
There are a number of things you could do. You could look for corroborating accounts. For example (note these are a three part series written by the same person):
Ultimately I guess you have to make your own judgement of what kind of ideas and behaviour you deem 'reasonable'. The difficulty, I suppose, is if you yourself are caught up in one of these purity spiralling communities. It's hard to maintain objectivity in such a situation. Delusional people don't know that they're delusional. People caught up in a cult don't think they're in a cult.
I've seen people only come to understand how insane things are when the mob finally turns on them, but by then it's too late to get out unscathed.
> The difficulty, I suppose, is if you yourself are caught up in one of these purity spiralling communities. It's hard to maintain objectivity in such a situation. Delusional people don't know that they're delusional. People caught up in a cult don't think they're in a cult.
Is it possible that some people accuse those who believe Quillette is objective of being caught up in such a community?
It'd seem so. Now who am I to believe? Should I believe Quillette because three different articles corroborate accounts of purity spirals? Or should I believe the editors of this other page when they say Quillette isn't objective.
Should I infer from comments on the internet some social malady that needs a remedy?
Why trust the authors of rationalwiki over the author of those Quillette articles? As you yourself asked: Who is more credible? How are we sure which one is? Perhaps nothing is knowable, and you should never believe anyone about anything ever.
At this point I think I'm going to bow out of this conversation. Good luck on your quest for objectivity!
The journalists of Jacobin Magazine, endorsed by Noam Chomsky, also think Quillette is pretty batshit. I hope you uhhhhhh.... get out of the cult? Or is it not a cult? Hopefully there's some objective evidence that it isn't, somewhere. Maybe deeming things cults is just the objective thing to do these days?
> Perhaps nothing is knowable, and you should never believe anyone about anything ever.
Or maybe I should be sceptical of claims that some social illness is pervading internet communities when that claim is made with only anecdotal evidence.