Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:12 pm
instead of a point-by-point discussion of my "critics"
I shall reset the conversation...
in the real world, there are levels of responses...which is
something my "fanboys" seem to miss
where my "legions of fans" want
this conversation to go..
I am analyzing
this on a different level than ''my friends'' are.... and that is
the difference in our responses... I am making a nuance response..
Just thought I'd first highlight all the self-congratulation and implicit insults.
So, rhetorical flourish numbers 5 and 9, since there is mindreading here. And 12 for self-congratulation.
viewtopic.php?p=637925#p637925
and also, if you read his whole response, not what I quoted, you'll find no mention of tolerance and acceptance in his response - he does mention accepting as what we are questioning around. IOW he changes the topic, moving it towards freedom of speech and actions. So, while yes, he does give concrete examples, which I think is great, despite his mindreading that I will be against this and want an abstract answer, it'd be great if he directly connected them to the issue we raised. So, his post is a concrete example of
24) Post such that it is unclear what you are responding to and even how you are responding to it.
There's also a dash of...
15) Don't respond to points made; restate in a new paraphrase what you already asserted. This should be everyone's baseline rhetorical strategy. Again, this is the core of PN style.
viewtopic.php?p=637925#p637925
Now here's a concrete situation. There's a guy on a philosophy forum who regularly psychoanalyzes conservatives. He says they come from fear. He psychoanalyzes his own political group differently and positively. Apart from being mindreading, it is also generalizing, and oversimplifying motivations. He often conflates conservatives with the religious right. He interprets their motives negatively. He does not recognize that sometimes conserving can be good. He presents the political situation as having two groups/two political positions, one bad, one good. IOW this is a false dichotomy.
IOW his posts are regularly condescending, ad hom - though aimed generally at everyone in the group - insulting, and
FAIL TO RECOGNIZE ANY NUANCE.
So, it would be highly, highly ironic if he were to present himself as the nuanced communicator.
One day I notice that this person has posted that it would be good if we
we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...
I and others like Phyllo find this odd, because of the way he posts in relation to conservatives and for the reasons I mentioned above. There are more things he does that do not seem to reflect accepting and tolerating all values and beliefs.
We point this out and this person talks about not hitting people or allowing them freedom of speech.
Well, that's not enough, I think, to fit the description practicing tolerance and acceptance of all values and beliefs.
So, we begin to probe what we see as a contrast between this goal, this good behavior and attitude he is suggesting and his own behavior and attitude here.
We do not contact moderators to have him banned. We would not assault him if we bumped into him, miraculously, and somehow realized who he was. We do not suggest he should be censored or punished.
What we do do is try to get clarification.
Notice that he tends to respond sort of generally to people who have similar positions but make different points. IOW he does not respond to specific points which I think is facile. And I tell him this. It would be much easier to point out that he isn't really responding to people if he quoted a point and responded to that point.
Here he manages to, yes, be concrete, but in now way make it clear exactly how this responds to the points we made and does this without mentioning acceptance and tolerance.
One reaction I have when reading this is to wonder if perhaps he lacks the skills to actually respond to points made. IOW perhaps he does not know how to actually use specific deduction or to give RELEVANT concrete examples or explain how really he is tolerant and accepting of conservatives. It is very hard to know, since we may be dealing with a very high level rhetorician. See here for a fuller explanation...
viewtopic.php?p=637925#p637925
My example is incredibly concrete. Wny? because one can actually track the concrete unfolding of this dialogue in this thread. One could also use the search functions in Philosophy Now, search for 'conservative' in Peter Kropotkin's posts, and see if you would consider him to practice tolerance and acceptance in relation to them and their ideas.
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=22684
Notice how he also has a history of not really responding. For example when it is pointed out that that in fact there is a significant portion of conservatives who are concerned about police abuse of power - he presented it as only liberals have this - he does not respond.
Which is fine. Peter has been making more of an effort to respond, in his way, to posts in his threads. He doesn't have to do this. It always seemed like his style is more bloglike. Lectures. But that certainly falls into the possible uses of a discussion forum, even if it is a forum.
In fact, I think it would be better than these not really responses posing as responses. But I am not on his level of expertise in rhetoric.
