Why are you attacking the author’s character rather than refuting the author’s words? Seems like a dishonest way to undermine another person’s opinion.
You say you distrust the author's views and opinions because of his politics.
I say: good! You should never take an author's work at face value. Every bit of nonfiction you read should be read critically. Nobody's judgment is infallible – not even Nobel prizewinners.
It’s better to say I think the authors should have thought about X rather the author is a moron and incompetent for not doing X. You can still say it by critiquing the actions not the character of the person. Similar rules exist in the Houses of parliament around accusations of lying simply because everyone would decend into that as a method of argument. It’s harder to call people out but still possible in my opinion.
Sure, but again - it's the same argument - the author should have taken enough pride in the manuscript to produce quality work to begin with. That's the root cause that put the author in this position.
I usually agree, but in this case maybe the author needs to hear exactly that. At least the author might the want to stop boasting about these things (and save his future career etc).
Stating my opinion about the author's opinion isn't slander. Take it easy. And there's no reason to compare the author and me. We're talking about the opinion here, not about who holds it.
In those situations, it's appropriate to point out potential biases or agenda from the author, but it is not appropriate to reinterpret their words based on a mental model one has of the author.
That model is likely to be flawed and incomplete, but even worse, it makes the text subjective. Two people, reading the same text, won't agree what it said. That prevents honest discussion.
reply