I do think there's a connection here but, for the sake of fairness, I have to point out that ten is not a large sample size, much less if picked non-randomly by someone who already has an agenda. This proves nothing, and the exact - and I do mean exact - same argument could be used to push any message, true or false.
You could find ten anti-white books by black authors, female authors, trans authors, gay authors, etc.
So, yeah, not even saying there's no truth here, but it's a bad and stilted argument.
The significance is that these authors are speaking from a standpoint of "fellow white people". They aren't "engaging with their positionality" as the gay commies like to say. "As a jew this is why I feel white people <bad>" isn't the message they are sending.
When you criticize methodology like sample size, and don't also include what you believe a would be a reasonable sample size, then that is an attempt to discredit without disproving which is a tactic used to derail discussions. Not saying that is your intent but that is the result.
then that is an attempt to discredit without disproving which is a tactic used to derail discussions.
I clearly said I don't even necessarily disagree with the message, just the framing. Again, it's a bad argument if you could make it fit universally.
Although I also may have overreacted a bit, it's mostly the framing of your title (no offense) that got me, not so much the linked content. The poster is talking specifics and themes, and there being ten books isn't really a core point, and he's not arguing statistics and ratios. I just got that from your title, and reacted to that, perhaps wrongly.
Not saying that is your intent but that is the result.
Well, thanks, because I certainly wasn't trying to derail. I just don't like bad arguments, and I think "These ten Jews I picked have something in common" is an incredibly silly argument. Which, again, isn't even the point of the content, just the title.
So, yeah, not trying to derail or discredit, just point out silliness when I see it.
I do think there's a connection here but, for the sake of fairness, I have to point out that ten is not a large sample size, much less if picked non-randomly by someone who already has an agenda. This proves nothing, and the exact - and I do mean exact - same argument could be used to push any message, true or false.
You could find ten anti-white books by black authors, female authors, trans authors, gay authors, etc.
So, yeah, not even saying there's no truth here, but it's a bad and stilted argument.
The significance is that these authors are speaking from a standpoint of "fellow white people". They aren't "engaging with their positionality" as the gay commies like to say. "As a jew this is why I feel white people <bad>" isn't the message they are sending.
When you criticize methodology like sample size, and don't also include what you believe a would be a reasonable sample size, then that is an attempt to discredit without disproving which is a tactic used to derail discussions. Not saying that is your intent but that is the result.
I clearly said I don't even necessarily disagree with the message, just the framing. Again, it's a bad argument if you could make it fit universally.
Although I also may have overreacted a bit, it's mostly the framing of your title (no offense) that got me, not so much the linked content. The poster is talking specifics and themes, and there being ten books isn't really a core point, and he's not arguing statistics and ratios. I just got that from your title, and reacted to that, perhaps wrongly.
Well, thanks, because I certainly wasn't trying to derail. I just don't like bad arguments, and I think "These ten Jews I picked have something in common" is an incredibly silly argument. Which, again, isn't even the point of the content, just the title.
So, yeah, not trying to derail or discredit, just point out silliness when I see it.
understood
Are they? So you have read the books, as opposed to the Twitter rando you quoted?