Clarification To “Sacred Principles As Exhaustible Resources”

Clarification to a prior post: Scott isn't against defending Charles Murray/Peterson or their free-speech rights -- his qualm is with the PROCESS of 'invite the most controversial person to maximize offense' (vs inviting someone because you're interested in their ideas). The sharp insight, via the NAACP choosing photogenic Rosa Parks over Claudette Colvin as a test case: publicizing GOOD free-speech test cases builds public support, while deliberately seeking the most hateable test case drains it -- so 'promoting' a principle via test cases (as opposed to merely using it) should be done well.

Quality 66 · Strong. A clarification of another post, but carrying a genuine, exported insight (the Rosa-Parks test-case-selection point; using vs promoting a principle). Strong, held down a bit by being secondary/derivative.

Claude’s paradigm shift 45 · Moderate. Moderate. The test-case-selection strategy and the Parks/Colvin example are a fresh angle on free-speech advocacy.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A clarification carrying an exported insight (the Rosa-Parks test-case-selection point: using vs promoting a principle); circulated within the discourse but with no material-world reach → RWI 2.