[IAmBroom]

I despise vague and quasi-anonymous attacks like this. "Trust me, online person, I, a random netizen, have made a moral judgment and you should have complete faith in it."

Google summarizes the controversy thus, from Wikipedia:

"John Derbyshire is an American journalist and political commentator. He was one of the last paleoconservatives at the National Review, until he was fired in 2012 for writing an article for Taki's Magazine that was widely described as racist. Since 2012 he has written for white nationalist website VDARE. Wikipedia

[smokedetector1]

Would you prefer OC was more specific, ie “the author turned out to be a racist”, or do you have an issue with calling someone like this despicable?

[IAmBroom]

Obviously, I would prefer OC was more specific. I said as much.

[smokedetector1]

Genuine question: are you on the spectrum? I find this reaction strange

[IAmBroom]

Wait... so you are perfectly OK with hating someone on the basis of some random online poster telling you that you should, with no explanation?

Wow.

[smokedetector1]

I don’t automatically hate someone because someone calls them despicable

[linksnapzz]

I always read that word as though it were being pronounced by Daffy Duck; "you're dethpikable!".

[cwmoore]

Is it not obvious? Replace “fairly despicable” with “white nationalist” instead of whatever anyone might imagine could make a mathematician despicable?

[smokedetector1]

Why does this shorthand upset you?

[cwillu]

A shorthand is generally unambiguous in context; this was not.

[smokedetector1]

Why does it matter to you so much that OC is unambiguous?

[cwmoore]

It was off-topic already. You driving it further is obsessive and ill-intended.

[cwillu]

Because I'm not on-board with every moral failing that is called “despicable” by someone being disqualifying or even relevant.

[cwmoore]

I am not upset. It is obviously obstusely, impenetrably vague. What is your problem?