You start by claiming that conservatives are prone to "group-think"--i.e., disparaging a group. Rather than addressing arguments, you "poison the well." This is along the same lines as those who disdain all "organized religion" or "conventional science" simply because many people believe it.
You then go on a long rant that never actually touches on his arguments; you say "Let me explain what is wrong with Goldberg’s thesis."-- yet, you never state the thesis you are refuting, or how your statements contradict the unspoken thesis.
If your argument were solid and you had at hand what you're trying to refute, you'd be able to take a statement:
"The major flaw of all of this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact--an inconvenient truth if there ever was one--is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space. The fact that they appear as polar opposites is a trick of intellectual history and (more to the point) the result of a concerted propaganda a effort on the part of the "Reds" to make the "Browns" appear objectively evil and "other" (ironically, demonization of the "other" is counted as a definitional trait of fascism.) But in terms of their theory and practice, the differences are minimal." (page seven) and just utterly tear it apart.
But you don't *do* that...you do two-three pages of reply to what you *believe* he's saying, and don't actually reply to what he *said.* Is your belief accurate? Who knows?
I think that you are perfectly able to respond, and make a rational argument about it--which is what bothers me to no end; on other subjects, you read what they say, quote it, and then argue against that. Here, you wave in the direction of what they said, and go on your own route.
In the second, you state as a starting place that "Fascism is a not right-wing phenomenon I am not even disposed to argue." This does not counter an argument, any more than my saying "nuh-uh, you are!" worked in arguments with my brother. That, actually, is what tipped me towards Mr. Derbyshire's Expelled posting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-23 09:07 am (UTC)I was too embarrassed to reply much; when someone pulls out the Nazi comparisons without a *damned* good reason....
http://fpb.livejournal.com/286650.html?thread=2153914#t2153914
You start by claiming that conservatives are prone to "group-think"--i.e., disparaging a group. Rather than addressing arguments, you "poison the well."
This is along the same lines as those who disdain all "organized religion" or "conventional science" simply because many people believe it.
You then go on a long rant that never actually touches on his arguments; you say "Let me explain what is wrong with Goldberg’s thesis."-- yet, you never state the thesis you are refuting, or how your statements contradict the unspoken thesis.
If your argument were solid and you had at hand what you're trying to refute, you'd be able to take a statement:
"The major flaw of all of this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact--an inconvenient truth if there ever was one--is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space. The fact that they appear as polar opposites is a trick of intellectual history and (more to the point) the result of a concerted propaganda a effort on the part of the "Reds" to make the "Browns" appear objectively evil and "other" (ironically, demonization of the "other" is counted as a definitional trait of fascism.) But in terms of their theory and practice, the differences are minimal." (page seven)
and just utterly tear it apart.
But you don't *do* that...you do two-three pages of reply to what you *believe* he's saying, and don't actually reply to what he *said.* Is your belief accurate? Who knows?
I think that you are perfectly able to respond, and make a rational argument about it--which is what bothers me to no end; on other subjects, you read what they say, quote it, and then argue against that. Here, you wave in the direction of what they said, and go on your own route.
In the second, you state as a starting place that "Fascism is a not right-wing phenomenon I am not even disposed to argue." This does not counter an argument, any more than my saying "nuh-uh, you are!" worked in arguments with my brother. That, actually, is what tipped me towards Mr. Derbyshire's Expelled posting.