[foldr]

Do you happen to have the passage in question at hand? Mein Kampf is a fairly long book, and it seems likely to me that there are passages of it which – with key words changed! – would not express anything particularly awful. But it is hard to judge without knowing what the modified passage actually said.

Edit: What the hoaxers actually say suggests that the passages were altered quite substantially: "The last two thirds of this paper is based upon a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original.". And you can read the paper here: https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/#solidarity

[tomsthumb]

>Oh, and here's a rather important detail. The paper was rejected!

From the link you provided - “Accepted by Affilia , August 21, 2018”

Don’t lie.

[foldr]

Sorry, that was a good faith mistake on my part, and I edited it out before you made this comment. I got confused because the link also states (correctly) that it was rejected from Feminist Theory.

[fenomas]

> Don't lie.

We're not in youtube comments here - assume good faith and be civil.

[tomsthumb]

> assume good faith and be civil.

I did.

Twice in two comments foldr quoted from a source. Both of those quotes are literally right next to another sentence in the source which is exactly the opposite of what foldr asserted.

The Affila wikipedia page section titled “Grievance studies affair” is four sentences long. The sentence right before foldrs quote, which is the first in the section is this.

>In October 2018, it was revealed that the journal had accepted for publication a hoax article entitled "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism."

The New Discourses link does say the paper was rejected from a specific journal in the first footnote which is . The second footnote says the article was accepted. Both footnotes quoted here:

> Peer reviewed and rejected by Feminist Theory

> Accepted by Affilia , August 21, 2018

At this point I am no longer sorry for not assuming good faith from someone arguing that a reformulation of kompf could be “not that bad”.

> We're not in youtube comments here

Be civil.

[foldr]

If I was intentionally lying, it seems unlikely that I’d have chosen to link to a page which clearly shows that my statement was false. It was just a careless mistake that I corrected as soon as I noticed it. Relax. I haven’t personally attacked you in this discussion. You’re not making your own point any clearer here by harping on this.

[tomsthumb]

>relax

>harping

I don’t accept the characterization of being thorough as harping, or that anyone would need to be unrelaxed for that. Is that ironic with me being told to assume good faith?

[jstarfish]

> If I was intentionally lying, it seems unlikely that I’d have chosen to link to a page which clearly shows that my statement was false.

Not saying you're doing it but these rules of thumb don't scale. This is totally a valid tactic in internet fuckary.

Making shit up and attributing it to a source anybody could but nobody will verify is high-school Essaywriting 101.

[foldr]

Rules of thumb by definition don't 'scale' (is this the right word?): they're true on the whole most of the time.

The point of 'assume good faith' is that it's very easy to convince yourself that semi-anonymous people on the internet are liars. Most of the time they're not. It's very easy to inadvertently make factual errors. Published books that have been carefully reviewed are full of them. What chance do random morons ranting on the internet stand?

[fenomas]

> I am no longer sorry for not assuming good faith from someone arguing that..

Sorry, but assuming good faith is like supporting free speech - if you only do it for arguments you agree with, you're not doing it at all. ;)