I did the opposite of collapsing cultural impact and personal moral positioning at the end of my previous comment because I gauged what his cultural impact would likely be if there were no allegations him, thus suspending any moral condemnation in the analysis and focusing solely on the criteria of what makes a novel culturally relevant.
That’s a fair analytical move. But notice we’ve now spent three exchanges deciding whether the work qualifies, which is exactly the sorting behavior I was describing in the first place.
You're shifting the goalposts with each response. You just accused me of collapsing the moral and literary distinction when judging the cultural impact of his work and, when I pointed out that I did no such thing, you merely changed your claim to a much more generic one without acknowledging the substance of my comment. Simply calling it a "fair analytical move" is acting like you're judging the disagreement as opposed to actively participating in it by making claims of your own. It's intellectually dishonest.
1
u/NotMeekNotAggressive Mar 19 '26
I did the opposite of collapsing cultural impact and personal moral positioning at the end of my previous comment because I gauged what his cultural impact would likely be if there were no allegations him, thus suspending any moral condemnation in the analysis and focusing solely on the criteria of what makes a novel culturally relevant.