Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6885276" data-attributes="member: 177">Just upthread, you complained about someone using a buzzword (&quot;terroristic&quot;), did you not?&nbsp; But you bust out the Raymondism* &quot;kafkatrap&quot;?&nbsp; I'm not sure that's even-handed, sir.Moreover, I think the use here is unwarranted, and, again, itself counts as a logical fallacy - thus:Raymond's original &quot;kafkatrap&quot; is inspired by the works of Kafka - specifically, &quot;The Trial&quot; in which someone is (1) accused of *unspecified* crimes, and (2) in which any protests of innocence are taken as evidence of guilt.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, in our case, the crime is pretty well defined (harassment).&nbsp; So, (1) does not apply.doseyclwn above makes no accusations of guilt at all.&nbsp; He simply notes that he might personally be a bit blind to the impact of certain speech, not having been subjected to it very much, so maybe he should not pass judgement on what is offensive.&nbsp; He is not assigning guilt to anyone - in fact, quite the opposite, he seems to be saying he can't really pass judgement.&nbsp; So, (2) does not apply.I think this puts your kafkatrap accusation as being from out in left field, and far more buzzwordy than referring to threats that scare people enough to have to leave their homes as &quot;terroristic&quot;.&nbsp; Earlier, I gave a different pushback, but it also wasn't kafkatrap.&nbsp; I didn't say, &quot;if you object to the language, you are guilty&quot;.&nbsp; I said, in effect, that language use was a *separate issue*, and that through repeated (I might even say continuous) diversion into the language issue, one will derail a meaningful discussion, and effectively dismiss real harm done on people.&nbsp; As if, after being harmed, we don't already expect people to be angry, and to speak angrily?&nbsp; And that we shouldn't make allowances for that and look past it to see if we can deal with the thing that made them angry?*The term &quot;kafkatrap&quot; was first coined by Eric S. Raymond, in a political essay in 2010.&nbsp; In that essay, he starts off acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect, but in his workaday discourse (to which I have unfortunately been exposed) he abjectly fails to treat people with respect.&nbsp; He was, once upon a time, very bright about software, but while he talks about politics a lot, he has no real experience in human governance.&nbsp; So, I find his socio-political chops are somewhat wanting.&nbsp; Not that this makes the term false or useless, but it means we cannot accept it on the basis of the strength of its origin, and we must examine it, and its use, on its own merits.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6885276, member: 177"] Just upthread, you complained about someone using a buzzword ("terroristic"), did you not? But you bust out the Raymondism* "kafkatrap"? I'm not sure that's even-handed, sir. Moreover, I think the use here is unwarranted, and, again, itself counts as a logical fallacy - thus: Raymond's original "kafkatrap" is inspired by the works of Kafka - specifically, "The Trial" in which someone is (1) accused of *unspecified* crimes, and (2) in which any protests of innocence are taken as evidence of guilt. But, in our case, the crime is pretty well defined (harassment). So, (1) does not apply. [b]doseyclwn[/b] above makes no accusations of guilt at all. He simply notes that he might personally be a bit blind to the impact of certain speech, not having been subjected to it very much, so maybe he should not pass judgement on what is offensive. He is not assigning guilt to anyone - in fact, quite the opposite, he seems to be saying he can't really pass judgement. So, (2) does not apply. I think this puts your kafkatrap accusation as being from out in left field, and far more buzzwordy than referring to threats that scare people enough to have to leave their homes as "terroristic". Earlier, I gave a different pushback, but it also wasn't kafkatrap. I didn't say, "if you object to the language, you are guilty". I said, in effect, that language use was a *separate issue*, and that through repeated (I might even say continuous) diversion into the language issue, one will derail a meaningful discussion, and effectively dismiss real harm done on people. As if, after being harmed, we don't already expect people to be angry, and to speak angrily? And that we shouldn't make allowances for that and look past it to see if we can deal with the thing that made them angry? [SIZE=1] *The term "kafkatrap" was first coined by Eric S. Raymond, in a political essay in 2010. In that essay, he starts off acknowledging the worth of equality before the law and of treating others with respect, but in his workaday discourse (to which I have unfortunately been exposed) he abjectly fails to treat people with respect. He was, once upon a time, very bright about software, but while he talks about politics a lot, he has no real experience in human governance. So, I find his socio-political chops are somewhat wanting. Not that this makes the term false or useless, but it means we cannot accept it on the basis of the strength of its origin, and we must examine it, and its use, on its own merits.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification