I don't think he does!
-
-
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 -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
It's not automatic. It's to do with the ideas. If you think they are wrong, you necessarily think people who think they are right are mistaken. We don't have to believe all belief systems are equally valid. Some are just wrong & people who believe them mistaken.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
How can we ever criticise anything if it is bad faith to say people are wrong about it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @AnglerFishLure
It's fine to say ideas are wrong, and that people are wrong for expressing them, but if you don't attempt to explain WHY they're wrong, it's not really criticism it's just character assasination. Perhaps, as you say in the other response, he's written well & extensively about
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
the differences, but it wasn't in the essay. So he's got a right to say it, and we've got a right to be annoyed (particularly in light of his non-partisan posture, since he paints essentially the same picture of JBP's audience as the much less intellectual hit job pieces)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Baloo_The_Bear @AnglerFishLure
He paints the same picture as Douglas Murray does. That is the picture. They write to me a lot. They really do feel like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It just doesn't make much sense to be annoyed that someone who has done years of research into psychology and ideological movements looks at a phenomenon in those terms rather than an epistemological breakdown of philosophical differences.
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.