Okay, sure, some people decouple concepts from context more instinctively than others, I agree. That analytic tendency is useful. But here's the thing. Reactionaries like Dawkins purposely play games to strip context away always in specific -- loaded -- ways.
-
Show this thread
-
Analytic thought is good, I'm a pretty strong partisan of it and as sharp a critic of certain patterns in the humanities and continental philosophy as there is. But shitstains like Dawkins use the shallowest pretense of it in bravery fights in uniformly reactionary directions.
1 reply 3 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
People like Dawkins claim that they're choosing contentious examples to emphasize the need for analytic thinking that separates concepts from context. But 1) this doesn't win converts to analytic thinking, 2) it's "pick on kids with leukemia because they're sacred" shit.
1 reply 3 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Dawkins isn't helping rationality or cultivating a culture of analytic thinking -- he's worlds away from people like Julia Galef @ CFAR -- all he's doing with such provocations is showboating ginned up tribal conflicts to strengthen his (reactionary) audience.
1 reply 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread
Dawkins is wrong on his point too. If you are going to say the ends justify the means (the ends being truth in this case, and the means being acting like an asshole) you have to actually be right to be justified.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.