Comment by arh68
1 year ago
Thoroughly wordy; this could have been 3 pages. Deeply unconvincing, to boot. (am I defaming the author by saying their writing sucks?) I'm more convinced "true defamation" is not defamation at all.
> as long as we understand the “opinions” involved in people’s reputation to be something formed more or less involuntarily as a consequence of receiving information being circulated about them.
What? Involuntarily? My opinions are certainly not formed involuntarily as a consequence of information. That's not something I can "understand".
One's reputation is not their property. How can my opinion be your property? Step off.
> It is wrong, all else equal, to knowingly damage an aspect of other people—like their face or their farm—in which they have strong interests.
No, it is not. If James Taylor has a strong interest in singing, it is not wrong to say he sings flat. It can be mean to criticize people for things they cannot change, but it's hardly wrong.
1. Opinions are involuntary. You see rain, you don't decide to think it's raining. You just think it.
2. The piece doesn't say rep is property, just like property in 2 ways (no others).
3. Not wrong to damage stuff you have a strong interest in, only stuff that's also an "aspect of yourself," how the paper defines this. Doesn't apply to Taylor case.
Agree, too long and wordy. But still worth getting right what it says before hating on/disagreeing because of what it doesn't.