If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things.
Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
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.
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.
Agreed that I wouldn't be shocked if an author wrote approvingly of something they agreed with. On the other hand, I would not be shocked if they wrote characters who exhibited behaviors they personally disagreed with either.
> This strikes me as some kind of variant of the ad hominem fallacy. You don't need to know anything about the author to value their content. A piece could be anonymous or the author's sole work and still be worth reading; conversely, people with high internet reputations often write garbage.
Er, while we're citing logical fallacies...isn't your last assertion here an example of confirmation bias? Often, people with "high internet reputations" are heard most often, which means that when what they say is garbage, it will be quite prominent and memorable.
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.
Your accusations are dramatic. It's OK to not consider this particular person's writings on the topic as required reading, or even particularly valuable, without rejecting the topic as a whole. And more subjectively, you shouldn't try to bully people into giving credence to murderers.
I don't appreciate this personal attack. You know nothing about me, you know nothing about who and what I endorse. You simply conclude that because I refer to work by a person you dislike, I am also a person you dislike, and therefore I'm worthy of being yelled at. The world isn't this black and white.
My linking to an article from 2007 does not mean I stand behind everything its author ever said. It's a good article. It does not suddenly become a bad article just because the author has gone batshit crazy a decade later.
"But I would like to live in a world where people might disagree with Reg Braithwaite but buy Raganwald’s book."
I wouldn't judge a person based solely on their published content, especially those authors that write fiction. But there are works I'll never buy or recommend because I will not knowingly support the actions/attitudes of the author. (SciFi examples: Card, Hubbard, Rosenberg...)
My focus on character is in response to OP assuming an article written by a notable author was "garbage," while taking the side of unnamed editors. I focused on a single sentence, and fail how to see this is illogical in the context presented.
> If the goal is to persuade, the last thing you want to do is give the reader a reason to dismiss you outright.
I think the point this article is making is that writing is the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of persuasion. It doesn’t matter how many people agree with you unless you’re trying to sell something.
Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
reply