I'm finding this conversation interesting, on a number of levels. I'd need a detailed definition of "far-right views" before I could join in a dialogue of whether it's "blindingly obvious" that they are wrong/don't have any substance.https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/979764760009994241 …
-
-
I'd suggest we *can* have a conversation about extremism. It's arguable that shoehorning the subject into a linear analogy no longer works as our understanding of the political spectrum is now more akin to that of a radar chart.
-
Assuming the radar chart approach, we could define key ideological points and then measure/assess ideologies in a a multivariate approach.
-
We could certainly write an essay defining extremism, yes, but for the purpose of the context of this Twitter conversation, we have got stuck. I'm left back where I was which is saying that far-left extremists are citing current scholarship I can get my teeth into, not far-right
-
As you've pointed out elsewhere on this increasingly bifurcated thread, that's almost certainly due to the lack of opportunity for academics to produce that research. I'm sure far-right extremists are citing scholarship, but whether it's either current or peer-reviewed is the q.
-
You are? None of them are citing it to me. I get very bored, very fast coz nothing of substance. But I won't die on that hill. I might have missed them. It is the reason I am focused on the far-left tho. Their extremist loons are accessible and often published & I can address it
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.