>That said, even dismissing him as a 'crank' would add more substance to your argument than calling him a 'vile idiot.'
Neither "crank" or "vile idiot" would add substance to bluecalm's argument. "Vile idiot" isn't even part of the argument, it's part of the conclusion.
I disagree with bluecalm on the "vile idiot" conclusion - I think that he's either vile or an idiot. If he's really communicating how he sees the world, he's an idiot. If he's just cynically trying to come up with another Gladwell/Taleb style thesis that will catch fire with the NYT and TED crowd and bring in buckets of money, then he's vile.
Neither "crank" or "vile idiot" would add substance to bluecalm's argument. "Vile idiot" isn't even part of the argument, it's part of the conclusion.
I disagree with bluecalm on the "vile idiot" conclusion - I think that he's either vile or an idiot. If he's really communicating how he sees the world, he's an idiot. If he's just cynically trying to come up with another Gladwell/Taleb style thesis that will catch fire with the NYT and TED crowd and bring in buckets of money, then he's vile.