No, Jeet, it's a ridiculous thread that completely misses Ross's point through a kind of willful effort at auto-arousal of outrage.
-
-
He's saying it's going to be an administrative or political question in the future is he not?
-
It's a prediction of sorts in order to think through an issue. But he's not advocating for it.
-
He's implicitly advocating for a rollback of the sexual revolution and a return to stronger norms/laws against sex outside of marriage, and easy divorce. I don't like it, but it's a reasonable and totally familiar religious conservative position.
-
My reading is that Douthat has created an either/or scenario: either return to traditional Christianity or sex robots. My objection is that I don't think those are the only options (because problem isn't lack of sex but misogyny).
-
Well, we will have sex robots. Returning to Christianity is possible, too. Whether there's a third option is an open question.
-
I'm pretty sure that neo-Medieval Europe & Westworld don't exhaust the number of possible human futures.
-
Can we please do Star Trek?
-
The Holodeck is kind of the sex robots option.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ross writes with great clarity, yet he seems to impel otherwise intelligent people to cast an incomprehension spell upon themselves.
-
1) it's not that people can't comprehend it, it's that he writes from a place of either deep ignorance or dishonesty on almost everything the essay touches on. He misunderstands or misrepresents:
-
2) nature of Shrinivasan's work; character of Heffner's pornographic aesthetic; basis for incel resentment; purported shared commitment to just distribution of wealth (neither Douthat nor Hansen share it); the intent of decriminalizing sex work...
-
3) the idea that society naturally builds on "past revolutions" rather than overturning them (conservatism is premised on constant reaction to past revolutions); and on and on...
-
4) Like so much Douthat, it's glib and superficial in a way that can only be premised on a refusal to engage deeply with the actual work of those conversant in and engaged substantively in the topics at hand. To wit: ignorant or dishonest. Or both
-
5) & of course the implicit theme is Douthat's standard: the *real* cause of incel rage is the loss of "traditionalism," & the only *true* solution is a return to that mythic traditional order, & rejection of modernity. He's basically an ostensibly more civil Jordan Peterson
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am not even particularly outraged. In the spirit of free liberal debate, my question about terrorism was in good faith! no rhetorical intent, there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.