[nwah1]

Why is it important that peoples' intentions are obvious in every piece of writing?

Journalists, anthropologists, and plenty of others strive towards rhetorical neutrality intentionally, and just as someone can be a citizen scientist, someone could also be a citizen journalist or anthropologist.

And furthermore it just isn't any of your business anyhow. What you are talking about is the equivalent of worrying about thoughtcrime. No objective harm was done but you worry that someone secretly holds an opposing viewpoint.

[jakelazaroff]

You can write however you want to. But don’t be surprised if you write something that could be construed as sympathetic to race science, and people go “hey, this person might support race science”. You seem to be saying that you can be as ambiguous as you want and that people shouldn’t try to fill in the gaps, which is ridiculous.

And no, it’s not “thoughtcrime” to form an opinion about a person based on things they’ve written.

[nwah1]

The only reason your statement here doesn't seem completely absurd is because you are invoking an issue which people have an acute emotional reaction on, to the point where even something which would be viewed as paranoid in another setting seems acceptable.

I shouldn't be surprised if people react in a paranoid or irrational manner, no. But I would hope that they would hold themselves to a higher standard.

In this case we are talking about a very humane and nuanced thinker, and under normal circumstances we should in fact withhold insinuation of malice unless evidence exists. It is called the principle of charity.

[jakelazaroff]

Well, no. Scott invoked the issue here, not me. And obviously, people see evidence of malice, which is why we’re having this whole debate.

But again, there’s nothing abnormal or “paranoid” about inferring someone’s intentions from their writing. You’ve done it yourself, which is why you described him as “humane”. Why shouldn't others be able to arrive at different conclusions?

[tekknik]

> And obviously, people see evidence of malice, which is why we’re having this whole debate.

Because the entire point of attempting to force one to take a stance is to further whatever the narrative may be, or to cancel counter narratives. There is no other point. There’s nothing wrong with arriving at your own conclusion but stop there if you don’t agree. Don’t cancel, dox, or otherwise force their opinion to match yours.

[jakelazaroff]

No one is being “forced” to take a stance, or canceled or doxxed.

[tekknik]

Yes, clearly. Come out from under your rock. Or try to view things from the alternate perspective. If this is not the intent, this is full well the idea has been implanted over the last 4 years. As a somewhat related source of evidence, see what they did with the Trump trial? It's mostly about what he did NOT say. This is one example, there are many many more from the last 4 years.