OK, so you clearly are not even pretending to discuss in a constructive manner. I'll still write my views on the general issue (note that I'm not the same person as originally linked the blog post).
When discussing the actions of a specific individual, calling them a "racist" is almost always either dishonest or pointless. It's similar to calling someone "a criminal". Technically this may apply to almost anyone (at least at a jaywalking level); it being technically true doesn't make it an honest discussion tactic unless you're talking about some kind of career criminal (in some sense a "typical criminal", rather than just technically qualifying as a criminal). Even when using it is honest, it's normally too vague to contribute anything constructive to a discussion. Calling KKK member or a skinhead who beats minority members on the street a "racist" is likely OK, but calling them that doesn't really contribute to the discussion. If you're discussing the actions of an individual then say "skinhead beating minorities on the street" or with more specifics, not the vague "racist" which could mean pretty much anything whatsoever. Its only "contribution" in discussion is to function as a slur meaning "you're as bad as Hitler".
I consider Matthew Garrett's blog post to be dishonest in this sense. He accuses the organizers of supporting "a racist". I'm pretty sure they've supported "a criminal" too, and so have the organizers of almost every other conference also.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Worst argument in the world
Date: 2017-02-28 10:41 pm (UTC)When discussing the actions of a specific individual, calling them a "racist" is almost always either dishonest or pointless. It's similar to calling someone "a criminal". Technically this may apply to almost anyone (at least at a jaywalking level); it being technically true doesn't make it an honest discussion tactic unless you're talking about some kind of career criminal (in some sense a "typical criminal", rather than just technically qualifying as a criminal). Even when using it is honest, it's normally too vague to contribute anything constructive to a discussion. Calling KKK member or a skinhead who beats minority members on the street a "racist" is likely OK, but calling them that doesn't really contribute to the discussion. If you're discussing the actions of an individual then say "skinhead beating minorities on the street" or with more specifics, not the vague "racist" which could mean pretty much anything whatsoever. Its only "contribution" in discussion is to function as a slur meaning "you're as bad as Hitler".
I consider Matthew Garrett's blog post to be dishonest in this sense. He accuses the organizers of supporting "a racist". I'm pretty sure they've supported "a criminal" too, and so have the organizers of almost every other conference also.