There is another sentence after the one you quote which takes the edge off it. Dropping that part could be construed as willfully taking his words out of context to makes them sound worse. IMHO taken as a whole I think it says more about his lack of understanding than him endorsing anything. But as you say, that's not blatant lying.
Sounds like lip service, to be honest, he does not allude to it after that sentence. Still, I dislike the fact that he felt he needed to write that. It brings nothing to the discussion.
I am not making the point that he didn't literally say what people are choosing to assume he meant. I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him.
And I am making the point that employing this misinterpretation to criticize him undermines the important, substantive reasons to criticize him.
(It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.)
What is a more generous interpretation of what he said? I didn’t misinterpret it, I used a rhetorical device to unwind his obfuscation of exactly what he was defending. If you only follow a dry analytic tone, then you deny yourself an essential tool for disarming sophistic contortions that defend things that are clearly indefensible when plainly stated.
If that were the only sentence in the statement, sure. But read the rest (which I believe you found if you can quote it) and it's clear what he's saying unless your objective is to misquote it and ridicule him.
He's quoting someone else there. He's presenting that quote as a "shorter and better" account of his situation, but I don't know if every extreme should be taken literally.
The biggest issue is that it's a mischaracterization of the talk.
He spent quite a bit of time at the start of the talk defining the context w/i which he was talking. He used strong language but it was never absolutist.
I think it's pretty clear than the author believes he may have offended people with his statement, and is rephrasing in a more precise manner to avoid confusion.
reply