Why should that be a mistake though? We take it for granted these days that public figures and companies will never show a scrap of mercy or generosity, but it doesn't have to be this way.
While acknowledging the truth of what you're saying (the first sentence, anyway), the problem is going into a cynical, defeatist "that's the way things are". A kind of learned helplessness.
Curtis Yarvin, IIRC in that same avatar of Moldbug, has actively advocated for the morality of slavery. There is no point in reasoning with that, there is literally only war.
Which is kind of a shame, because the top-level article does have some interesting ideas. I hope the author is just young and undiscerning and doesn't actually support the kind of things Yarvin stands for. But also, being a monster doesn't stop anyone from having the occasional interesting idea, so who knows.
It is clearly provocative, as it obviously provoked the commenter, and it isn't interesting. A simple Google search can provide the rationale for it, and focusing on something so trivial is unlikely to provide more thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating discussion than the actual article.
Good point, motive and intent do have value in assessing the likelihood that someone committed an crime (or any action). It's not quite the same as using motive to claim that someone is wrong though.
However, I agree that ad hominem is not always fallacious. If I claim that tobacco is not bad for health and it turns out that I have no medical background and that I was paid by the tobacco industry, arguably an ad hominem argument can be used to cast some doubts on my credibility on this particular issue. Probably enough doubts that one doesn't need to pay further attention to what I said.
However it's an approach that should be used with caution. It is much too easy to misuse it to lazily explain away someone's inconvenient argument. It is particularly pernicious when it is using a supposed feeling like jealousy, that are hard to disprove.
It's not really bold at all. Their conservative belief supersedes their liberal ones; you wouldn't be a TERF if you weren't highly discriminatory about your peers. That is, by definition, conservative behavior. If you think TERFs hold a unifying liberal belief that prevails over trans-exclusion, you'd have a point. Alas...
> LGBT advocates who want to keep LGBT institutions to advocate from, are then conservatives.
Sure. They're obviously socially liberal, but that would be an individualist and conservative decision to make.
As I said in the last comment; people who are largely liberal can also hold conservative beliefs (and vice versa). You could even claim in a post-queer world that LGBT advocates then become the conservative party. We don't live in that world though, so radical feminists that believe in trans-exclusion are still socially conservative.
The term "TERF" isn't really accurate though, it should really be "MERF", if such a term is needed.
Point is, these radical feminists are excluding males from their feminism. I really don't see how that makes them socially conservative.
For example, radical feminists tend to advocate strongly for lesbian rights, based around the fact that lesbian women are female with a sexual orientation exclusively towards others who are female. The right to experience their sexuality free from harassment, the right to enjoy female-only lesbian spaces, the right to keep the word "lesbian" exclusive to them and not have it redefined to include bisexual women or any type of male.
How often do you find social conservatives championing these lesbian rights? I would say very rarely, if ever.
And we, as a society, now condemn getting away from groups defined by their race/skin color, and flocking together to others who are less likely to hate you?
I agree it would be a poor argument if used as argument. It wasn't. Funny you use "other people do X too". You agree those Georgians are self segregating.
I'm using it to explain the news to other people, not to argue for Adams' right to be free from blame for what he said. Here's an asymmetry:
Self segregating is racist if done to get away from black people, and indifferent (or even praise worthy) if done by black people.
> We are, as a society, I suppose more or less aware of power asymmetries.
Black cities were born out of need, since people of color were kicked out of their homes and had to find a place that was safe for them. The came redlining. The specific case of Freedom Georgia, the article you linked, is about building a town where they feel safe, not because of the color of the skin, but because they will have the opportunity to enforce fair policing and not have to fear for their lives when stopped by a patrol.
Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them. Quite a different context, right?
Yes, different context. But for the same idea to exist in both Adam and Freedom Georgia's peoples: self segregation.
Freedom Georgia wants a black owned town. They do it because they think of it as proxy for "safe for black people". And they think that because they see skin color as the clue to spot friend or foe.
A different context, to use the same tools (race based prejudice). Both Freedom Georgia and Adams are racists. Either being a racist is not the accusation society frames it to be, or both of them should be shunned. Neither outcome looks good...
> Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them.
How many people would the poll need for you to find it harder to condemn Adams?
There are differences. But also things in common. Both statements get to "like me" by using skin color (or race) as proxy. And so we learn "people (un)like me" are people of the same color, and now you see they are the same statement.
Adams was condemned, fired, newspapers print his guilt, and the parent of this thread selects a bit of evidence for his guilt: he wanted to self segregate.
As for the Georgians, we condemn them in private equally as Adams. However, because they are black, society lets them be racist.
In any case, what bothers me more is the art not being separate from the artist. If there's merit in Dilbert, I hope someone picks it up.
Do we condemn them in private equally? I don't. I'm not sure why you'd think that everyone shares your point of view.
If you're part of a marginalized group you are the outgroup everywhere you go, all the time. Wanting a break from that experience, wanting to walk the neighbourhood without fear that you will die-by-police feels fair to me.
I don't see why the existence of a power asymmetry has any moral bearing one's freedom of association. Seems like you are just trying to rationalize double standards.
Not by virtue of its blackness, indigenous or sex status, but only in relation to other people. If other people were to praise blackness, indigenousness and being non-man, it would not suffer, but thrive.
Yes, things would be different in a completely different culture other than the one we're discussing. That's why I weigh claims of oppression from Copts higher than I do from Baptists.
Now we discuss "claims of oppression by identities", yet before it was just "identities". Before identity was enough, when called out you switch to specific oppression. Almost as if you didn't care either way: before there were no individual experiences, now it's relevant. It really is a disease...
