The reason well named is there, and Wookie by extension, is because of this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I've never particularly cared for Zeno's posting style, but my impression is that he just leans way too hard on the devil-may-care misanthropic affect because he thinks it's kind of cool, and the tone is intended to be ironic. I'm not sure that always comes across or is worth tolerating in its more extreme forms, but I do think it's qualitatively different from BruceZ, whose claims to devil's advocacy were never particularly believable, or toothsayer, who is one of the most repulsive people I've ever encountered online and who I'm sure actually believes a lot of the vile things he posts, whether he also intends to troll or not. Partly my opinion of Zeno's intent is based on his reactions to threads I've posted in dealing with topics like race or racism.
So, my opinion is that it seems reasonable enough to want to whack zeno with a rolled-up newspaper for some of those posts, and tell him that maybe that style of posting is problematic, but I'm not seeing the need to give him the full pitchforks and torches treatment. YMMV
This speaks to the hypocrisy that I alluded to in my OP. I’d really like well named to explain the difference between an old man who gets annoyed by his noisy Mexican neighbors and goes on a rant against Mexicans, and an old man who gets annoyed by how Indian customer service reps speak and goes on a rant against Indians. Those things come from the same place. The only germane difference is that the second guy actually advocated nuclear genocide. That’s racist by anyone’s definition. Yet the first guy gets the torches and pitchforks while the second gets a whack with a newspaper?
Now BruceZ also became a slavery apologist when he debated David Sklansky about Thomas Jefferson’s morality. He claimed he was just putting himself in the mind of an 18th century man and making a slanted argument. That is pretty much what one does in a debate. But you don’t find it believable, and because you don’t believe it, he gets the torches and pitchforks, even though that type of debate in a philosophy forum, quoting de Tocqueville and so forth, actually has value. Where’s the value in Zeno’s rants?
Your whole argument hinges on what you find to be believable. But IIRC, don’t you find it believable that some dude rose from the dead 2000 years ago? I only bring it up because I think Mat’s old man might object to his idea of handing the reins of 2+2 completely over to someone who’s critical thinking skills have led them to that belief.