So, that (somewhat cut) is clear enough. The aim here is to distinguish a liberal desire for progress from the ideological mess on the far-left. To do so, requires understanding said ideological mess.
-
-
Important points, but they could have been made much more clearly and succinctly. The academic style of writing is unnecessarily muddled and pedantic, its first purpose being to signal other cognoscenti that the author is “one of us”, rather than to communicate effectively.
-
That's kind of the purpose. To speak in its own economy and on its own terms but use them to be precise & dissect it rather than fluffy and obscure. I love that it does that & love the style generally but recognise it's hard to parse for people unfamiliar with it.
-
A noble attempt perhaps, but somehow I doubt that it will prove persuasive to the target audience - based as it is on reason and logic.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This exercise is proof that we need philosophers ... To undo the damage caused by philosophers. I think the best we can hope for is that in the end it's a wash.
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.