Shibboleth
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

It’s your right to question the legitimacy of the claims that I made and it’s my right to refuse to perpetually defend my claims

Well, not perpetually, but once would be nice. Why else do people post on these public forums if not for the exchange of ideas?

The overall perception of a document like that “manifesto” is in great part due to what one denotes or accepts as base facts and also to one’s predilections in general. In both regards, we, you and I, are radically removed from each other. Thus, attempts by you to define his arguments in one way to me and attempts by me to define his arguments in one way to you, are futile and redundant.

That was rather word-salady. You may be right that one’s overall perception of a document is influenced by their biases, but that has nothing to do with the actual message of the document. One’s perception of a thing isn’t necessarily the thing.

I have no interest in defining his arguments this way or that, i’m merely interested in what the arguments themselves say, and it’s a fairly weak copout to say that it’s futile for us to try to understand the author’s actual argument. Regardless, you may of course interpret the meaning and intent of his words above and beyond the words themselves all you like, but if so you might wish to phrase your interpretation as such. Your initial claim was that the author made a proclamation, and that said proclamation was a primary component of the manifesto. Such a proclamation is non-existent, whether you believe its spirit lies in the subtext of the totality of the piece or not.

    Shibboleth

    Written by