Re:Quinn Norton: The New York Times Fired My Doppelgänger
by danso on Wednesday February 28, 2018 @09:32AM
(#16483199)
I might not have been clear enough -- Norton is the one claiming to have science and absolute truth on her side. It's brought up in The Atlantic article, and particularly in this blog/Patreon post:
> I want people to reach out to the abusive toxic men and senior executive vice presidents in their lives, because it’s the most scientifically sound way that we fight bad ideas...
> ...I have no need or desire to bring more hate and anger into this world. What’s more, I have science that can help me develop techniques to diminish the anger and hate that’s here now. Science, like all forms of truth, is a form of love.
And to reiterate, I, and most of her critics, don't have a problem, in theory, with the idea of faithful redemption. But in her writing (and her tweets about this), Norton argues, essentially from a priori, that she knows her approach is right because it is true to her values/heart/whatever. She doesn't have a response to the concern about how she knows she's not being an enabler of (or otherwise suckered by) weev, or that she's not creating any unwanted second-order effects, such as inaderdently creating the appearance of normalizing weev, which helps weev in his mission to recruit toward his cause.
Great Twitter thread here, in which Norton's friend says
> We are arguing about tactics and approach, and I am suggesting that the approach you are advocating is not as morally clear cut or correct as you argue...and that in fact while laudable in the individual case may quite plausibly cause other significant problems. To me your argument is only morally clean if you ignore the externalities and other effects, and I think this disjunction is causing some of the friction.
Norton's reply at the end of that thread is:
> ...fwiw, i've spent time in recent years looking at the science behind persuasion, & personal connection comes up again and again. but i first learned that seeing how National Coming Out & queer visibility helped move the culture along; thru personal connection
She may honestly believe that science is hand-in-hand with her altruistic optimism, and that's what's disturbing, because she has no desire to actually consider the parameters for when her approach could be considered a failure.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/26/we-have-to-build-the-f...
> I want people to reach out to the abusive toxic men and senior executive vice presidents in their lives, because it’s the most scientifically sound way that we fight bad ideas...
> ...I have no need or desire to bring more hate and anger into this world. What’s more, I have science that can help me develop techniques to diminish the anger and hate that’s here now. Science, like all forms of truth, is a form of love.
And to reiterate, I, and most of her critics, don't have a problem, in theory, with the idea of faithful redemption. But in her writing (and her tweets about this), Norton argues, essentially from a priori, that she knows her approach is right because it is true to her values/heart/whatever. She doesn't have a response to the concern about how she knows she's not being an enabler of (or otherwise suckered by) weev, or that she's not creating any unwanted second-order effects, such as inaderdently creating the appearance of normalizing weev, which helps weev in his mission to recruit toward his cause.
Great Twitter thread here, in which Norton's friend says
https://twitter.com/tomcoates/status/968631133591109632
> We are arguing about tactics and approach, and I am suggesting that the approach you are advocating is not as morally clear cut or correct as you argue...and that in fact while laudable in the individual case may quite plausibly cause other significant problems. To me your argument is only morally clean if you ignore the externalities and other effects, and I think this disjunction is causing some of the friction.
Norton's reply at the end of that thread is:
> ...fwiw, i've spent time in recent years looking at the science behind persuasion, & personal connection comes up again and again. but i first learned that seeing how National Coming Out & queer visibility helped move the culture along; thru personal connection
She may honestly believe that science is hand-in-hand with her altruistic optimism, and that's what's disturbing, because she has no desire to actually consider the parameters for when her approach could be considered a failure.