Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Whether you like the satire or not is unrelated to whether or not it is appropriate to mis-represent peoples' views. The most unhelpful thing we can do for the discourse is to be innaccurate or otherwise obfuscate the point someone is trying to make.
It is much better to take their point and criticize the merits of it, rather than deliberately attempt to bury it under inaccurate smears. It's a common tactic that seems to be pervading public discourse - and frankly is turning into a regular tactic for those on the Left. Think Glenn Greenwald or Reza Aslan.
I hope my defense of accuracy is not being conflated with a defense of Roosh. I don't particularly like what he does. (Although I do think that provocateurs have a valuable place in society - I really enjoy Gavin, and Milo Yiannopolis for instance).
As an aside, the above reasoning is why I am a staunch defender of ALL speech being free, regardless of its content. Much better to hear a stupid/offensive argument and discredit it, than it is to try to silence it.
|
As this is getting a long way from Jian and the topic of sexual assault, I'll be briefish and make this my last post off topic:
Don't let your bias overwhelm your critical thought capabilities. The tactic you speak of knows no political boundaries. Ezra Levant says hello.
Free speech is necessary regardless of opinion, and the provocateurs too (even though I'm not sure why you shoe-horned an irrelevant FS argument into this). Proper criticism tho, includes viewing a particular piece in conjunction with their body of work.
Your defence of is wholly based on interpretation, making your ability to be definitive of him against the dark arts of the left completely nil. Based on his history, the interpretation that he believes in his "satire" is equally valid, if not more so (than your interpretation based on taking him at face value).
Nothing is said in a bubble.