I'll be blunt. I don't regard Cold War revisionists anymore seriously than World War II revisionists. I tried reading this Bessner character's essay. Stalin wasn't an ideological fanatic? Give me a break. I guess he decided to collectivize agriculture because he thought it would be fun. Oh and he invaded Finland and the Baltics because he was afraid of Germany.
Why should I regard this guy any differently than David Irving, who I am also told had some legitimate insights?
In part, because it makes life better not to go around writing people off or insulting them.
In part because it is useful to try to change people's opinions, a thing that happens quite often in real life, as a perusal of public opinion data will show. (And usually personal experience as well.)
In part because ad hominem attacks -- this man is an idiot, with bad motives! -- is precisely what I am criticizing, and what you are doing. The comparison with David Irving is a low blow and not something you should do in a public forum. Brad Delong played that game against me, so why should I condone it when you play it against Bessner?
Finally, to sum all of that up, it's not in your power to discredit the man, so by writing things the way that you do, you only make his ideas stronger.
I have no illusions that Prof. Bessner will read this. I have fewer illusions that it will get him to reconsider anything. But I have some hope that on the margin I may influence our discourse for the better. Which would include persuading you to tone it down and consider more often that you might be wrong, or at the very least that your opponents may have reasonable precepts that simply happen to be different from yours.
The irony is that Bessner was a regular on Bloggingheads; the projects whole raison d’etre was bringing scholars and intellectuals from different sides of the aisle to do video conversations with each others
That said, it very well may be that Bessner doesn't consider Substack a place for intellectual exchange, but merely a place to publicize (and perhaps monetize) his thoughts. I would respect that completely had he said something along the lines of, "Let's take this to email," or even, "You raise some good points, but I sadly don't have time to discuss them now."
With all due respect, I disagree completely. Most of the scholars I know are very interested in historical, scientific, and moral truth. Too many are not, but both of the people I referenced in this post very much are. I do, however, think that they were too quick to dismiss historical and scientific arguments when they came from people a person with whom they may have a moral disagreement.
This doesn't mean that I won't rant about woke academics in other contexts. Or rant about reactionary ones in (far far far far far fewer) contexts. It just means that my post was not about those people. I fear I may have failed if you concluded that it was.
I'll be blunt. I don't regard Cold War revisionists anymore seriously than World War II revisionists. I tried reading this Bessner character's essay. Stalin wasn't an ideological fanatic? Give me a break. I guess he decided to collectivize agriculture because he thought it would be fun. Oh and he invaded Finland and the Baltics because he was afraid of Germany.
Why should I regard this guy any differently than David Irving, who I am also told had some legitimate insights?
In part, because it makes life better not to go around writing people off or insulting them.
In part because it is useful to try to change people's opinions, a thing that happens quite often in real life, as a perusal of public opinion data will show. (And usually personal experience as well.)
In part because ad hominem attacks -- this man is an idiot, with bad motives! -- is precisely what I am criticizing, and what you are doing. The comparison with David Irving is a low blow and not something you should do in a public forum. Brad Delong played that game against me, so why should I condone it when you play it against Bessner?
Finally, to sum all of that up, it's not in your power to discredit the man, so by writing things the way that you do, you only make his ideas stronger.
I have no illusions that Prof. Bessner will read this. I have fewer illusions that it will get him to reconsider anything. But I have some hope that on the margin I may influence our discourse for the better. Which would include persuading you to tone it down and consider more often that you might be wrong, or at the very least that your opponents may have reasonable precepts that simply happen to be different from yours.
The irony is that Bessner was a regular on Bloggingheads; the projects whole raison d’etre was bringing scholars and intellectuals from different sides of the aisle to do video conversations with each others
I agree that is ironic!
That said, it very well may be that Bessner doesn't consider Substack a place for intellectual exchange, but merely a place to publicize (and perhaps monetize) his thoughts. I would respect that completely had he said something along the lines of, "Let's take this to email," or even, "You raise some good points, but I sadly don't have time to discuss them now."
Look I'm just an internet gadly with no relevant credentials, but I stopped taking leftist academics seriously a long time ago.
The Occam's razor explanation for their incomprehensible behavior is that they're uninterested in historical, scientific, and moral truth.
With all due respect, I disagree completely. Most of the scholars I know are very interested in historical, scientific, and moral truth. Too many are not, but both of the people I referenced in this post very much are. I do, however, think that they were too quick to dismiss historical and scientific arguments when they came from people a person with whom they may have a moral disagreement.
This doesn't mean that I won't rant about woke academics in other contexts. Or rant about reactionary ones in (far far far far far fewer) contexts. It just means that my post was not about those people. I fear I may have failed if you concluded that it was.