David Schraub has a nuanced view of Glenn Greenwald's decision to write for The American Conservative:
and goes on to quote a paragraph that ends thus:
But I don't think he [Greenwald] himself is anti-Semitic or that there are any grounds to imply otherwise.
I agree that this is nuanced, if unintentionally so. I take "otherwise" as parallel to "[that] he is anti-Semitic": Schraub doesn't think Greenwald is an anti-Semite; nor does he think there are any grounds for implying that Greenwald isn't an anti-Semite. This is consistent, and similar to my predicament -- I don't think my research will cure cancer or that there are any grounds to imply otherwise. One worries, though, that some readers might miss the subtlety.
2 comments:
Not a snowclone.
... similar to my predicament -- I don't think my research will cure cancer...
I enjoy reading your blog -- my research is on quantum Monte Carlo.
Other way around: I don't think Greenwald is anti-Semitic, nor do I think there are any grounds to imply that he is anti-Semitic. (The wording was ambiguous -- I meant "otherwise" to refer back to my conclusion that Greenwald is not anti-Semitic).
Post a Comment