I think we need to draw all these ideas together and look at them psychologically with a view to understanding and communication. I think Haidt is the best way forwards here and also, as always, a consistently rational & liberal (in the broadest sense) approach to the problem.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting analysis but I disagree with the assertion that reason/rationalism are inadequate to address SJW dogma. As with religion or other intuitive beliefs, they are deserving of basic respect as long as they are held to be strictly personal 1/
-
They can address their factual claims. We still need to acknowledge the psychology beneath it though, if we want to understand why this so seldom changes minds. This is where Haidt is good. Shows us how to talk to people and engage their moral foundations.
-
They way I see it, the challenge is not to reclaim the already converted, but to present a compelling alternative to potential converts. For this, I believe engaging or even attacking the dogma directly by exposing it's myriad logical absurdities is the best way.
-
I recommend Righteous Minds for this. It will only work if the person wants to know what is true. It works well for people already leaning towards scepticism. Otherwise, it helps to know how to reframe it to appeal to their intuitions.
-
Do we take the same gentle, understanding approach with militants white supremacists?
-
Is anyone recommending a gentle, understanding approach? I think understanding is good if we want to tackle things. And yes, that applies to all ideologies. Do you see me going easy on postmodernism-based ideologies?
-
Twitter just muted you for me! I certainly didn't but suddenly you disappeared and when I checked... Don't mistake my thinking that we need to promote rationality & objective truth and recognise the psychological need for narratives as neglecting the former. It matters what works
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The argument could have been summarised in a tweet: wokeness is a type of religion & its followers are therefore irrationality angry at what they see as blasphemous disregard of or twisting of the exact forms of its rituals. No need 4 a wordy essay.
-
*irrationally*
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It brought joy to my tiny heart to see Kolakowski being read and used. Truly one of Poland's greatest minds. There is hope in humanity
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Everything Jacobs writes is worth reading, but I thought most of the Kołakowski myth stuff was just a clarification of what's already a commonplace, that SJWs are practicing a "religion".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That was an interesting read. Interesting content. Interesting that a Christian wrote it. Interesting dissonance subject to bring up with the religious arguing against PoMo.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I didn't find it especially clarifying. It also seems to suffer from malapropism, like using "mythical" for "mystical". To me, Monod's concept of rationalistic naturalism vs irrationalistic finalism was much more revealing.
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.