I see. It doesn't matter what people actually say very clearly and explicitly. We just mindread them & insist we know what they really mean. I'm sure you'd be fine with people doing this to you. You want a white ethnostate in which homosexuality is illegal & women have no rights
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
I don't see how that's fundamentally different than what James did in the essay. He paints the audience as a monolith & interprets their motivations, then asserts that they're being duped rather than expressing a philosophical difference. So you should understand the annoyance.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
He identifies his real disagreement with Peterson: pragmatism against empiricism. But instead of delving into that he calls JBP's philosophy "snake oil" and spends most of the essay comparing his fans to a cult. That's a good faith argument?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
Yes. You can disagree and argue that it actually has worth and there isn't a big movement growing up around it of people, primarily young men, who find him inspirational and to bring hope but this doesn't make it a bad faith argument to disagree with you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can think James and Douglas Murray mistaken about the passion he is inspiring & insist that he's just normally popular but I'd urge you to look at the figures of how many people are going to see him, how much money is contributed each month to his goals, the language they use
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
Right, but that's not the issue. It's not the degree of passion or the numbers, it's the automatic (and deeply nihilistic) assumption that people experiencing intense connection with anset of ideas are being duped. That's the bad faith--you can disagree with him, fine, but
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
not even considering that they might have legitimate *philosophical* reasons (as opposed to just instinctive/reactive stuff--the men want to "get laid" etc.) is not actually judging the ideas on merit. It's exploring WHY they're wrong, which is the pre-determined conclusion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
I don't know why you think the philosophical ideas haven't been considered. James has written several books on religion and psychology & epistemology & been published in philosophy journals on the subject. He has considered whether such ideas are legitimate. It's OK to think not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But this one doesn't look at Peterson's epistemology, no. It looks at the movement arising around him and the psychology underlying it - the alienation by feminism, the worthlessness of various countermovements like MRM etc & Peterson's appeal in the middle of this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You can certainly think he (and Murray) made a bad argument about the psychological draw of this stuff. Me too. I wrote this. But that doesn't make it bad faith.pic.twitter.com/P2y8CBsrKL
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.