From shaming to intellectual challenge

[timelets]

I see a beginning of a pragmatic shift within a more farsighted academia: away from shaming alt-right ideologues to challenging them intellectually. Shaming works only as long as the society is unified in its cultural norms. Once the norms fracture, one has to find a deeper cultural background for discussing ideas. For example, the tag "alt-right" itself is a misnomer akin to "horseless carriage." That is, it denotes what the thing is not, rather than what it actually stands for. This is a sign of an early-stage innovation where the future is highly uncertain and open to interpretation. No wonder it attracts amoral opportunists like Trump and Co.

Comments

[timelets]

Reusable is a useful term here. Why is it important to produce reusable claims?

[lxe]

Broadest: division of labor.

[timelets]

Why do you think positive claims are better for the division of labor than normative claims?

[lxe]

I did not say "positive claims are better for the division of labor".
Both positive and normative claims can be used by a different person from the one who makes them, or the same person in different circumstances. This makes them suitable means of investment and exchange. Consequently, claims have their market valuation based on the desirability of accepting or rejecting them; the more reusable a claim is, the greater the market, the more accurate the valuation is.

I don't, however, see any room for the "better" comparison. They are perfect complements. There is no way to substitute acceptance of a positive claim with acceptance of a normative claim, or vice versa, for any particular purpose.
Complementary combinations of positive and normative claims can, however, be substituted if they produce actions that can.

Science and engineering deal with highly reusable positive claims.
Churches and political movements deal with highly reusable normative claims.
Tainting scientific research with normative claims undermines its reusability in the same way a universal religious teaching may be tainted with positive claims of its contemporary science. Think of inability to buy the idea of compassionate love independently from the idea of a global deluge.

[timelets]

From this perspective, would a blueprint of a car be considered a positive or a normative statement?

[lxe]

It's a positive description [of something that's suitable for a particular purpose according to the designer's knowledge and belief].
A contract obligation or an administrative ordinance to use it for a particular purpose would be a normative statement.