08-26-2021, 09:05 PM
(08-26-2021, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Not for "some reason." I have explained this carefully, and twice. Now for the 3rd time, re-quoting post #237:
1. "Those engaged [in scholarly research] do not call the objects of their study "human scum"--be they individuals, parties, or states.... [because] such terms offer no descriptive or analytical precision. Demogogues use such language to express and arouse negative emotions, often to demonize minority ethnic groups, and they have no place in social scientific/historical description, where they simply mark the writer's own distortive bias."
I subscribe to this ethos of modern scholarship, as do some others on this board. You do NOT, and so are "comfortable" with the bolded.
Quote:2. I am indeed "comfortable" making social-scientific comparisons between authoritarian regimes and current US politics; that is one way in which political science scholarship serves democracy. And you are NOT, at a time when our politics have taken an authoritarian turn.
Such comparisons are not made to "call" people Nazis or Taliban (remember 1 above?), but to forestall authoritarian, anti-democratic politics which might expand under new names, but a similar logic to past authoritarian politics. You are not "comfortable" with that either.
Such comparisons "call" or equate the groups compared whether you like it or not. This has been explained to you and you choose to ignore it. Such comparisons are inflammatory, whether intentional or not, and serve no constructive purpose. They literally only serve to equate the group being compared to some of the worst human beings who have ever lived.
Quote:If you think it contradictory to refuse to call people 'scum' while engaging in scholarly comparison of authoritarian politics, that just means you conflate the latter with name calling.
I don't think calling scum scum is name calling, it's accurate labeling.
Quote:Why did you choose to simply repeat the conflaction, rather than actually addressing my defense of scholarly/social-scientific ethos, methods, and purposes? The latter is what you are really at odds with here, not some personal dill quirk.
Because it's inane and as usual, ignores the actual point of discussion.
Quote:Wait, am I "refuting the excesses of Islam" or "never addressing [them] at all"?
Both! Reread the sentence above a few hundred times and maybe it will sink in.
Quote:At least quote the claims you attribute to me, or stop asserting that I make them. The rest is just dodgery.
How can I quote something you refuse to address?
Quote:My refusal to call ISIS "scum" is neither premise nor conclusion to some "refutation of excesses.of Islam."
Rather that addresses your rhetorical excesses.
No, it's your refusal to even acknowledge the excesses and abuses routinely conducted in the name of Islam that does that. There's a reason you refrained from addressing a very large and significant portion of my post. I'll let anyone who cares go back and see what you omitted so they can connect the dots. As I said, you're fooling no one, probably not even yourself.
