This is the problem with a collective. It produces a tendency to be for all members or against all members. An in-group & an out-group emerges. Then motivated reasoning comes in to rationalise this and then the actual issues & the productivity of different views on them gets lost
-
-
Show this thread
-
Rather than 'I'm with or against the Intellectual Dark Web,' we'd be better saying 'I agree with Sam Harris on truth & disagree with Jordan Peterson and this is why.' Or the other way round. That is productive.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So naturally this means I have some level of disagreement with you but it can work because it's not being done in the name of resenting any of them simply for having too much exposure of good things happening to them.
-
That is often a smear too. 'You don't really dislike this person's ideas. You're just jealous.' Just another way to avoid engaging with the criticisms of ideas. Like smears aimed at many of them that they're insincere & just trying to make money. We can do better than that
-
I absolutely agree that we should look to see if the critics are going after their ideas. But I think the ones who are, such as you, James
@GodDoesnt or@AliceDreger -whoa re all helpful- are outnumbered by those who can't cope with their success or exposure in any capacity. -
But you're already putting me in a position of 'critic' when the two thinkers I admire most in the world are Pinker & Haidt, I love Sam Harris and have great respect and personal liking for Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying and think very positively of many others.
-
One cannot coherently be a critic or a supporter of such an intellectually diverse group of people and trying to be is not helpful. Yes, people who object to anyone who criticises authoritarian, political blank-slatism will loathe all of them & see them as a tribe but they're not
-
And I don't think seeing the problem as 'people who can't cope with their exposure' is really getting it. Those people are quite happy for people they approve of to have loads of exposure so exposure isn't the issue. Ideology is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Due to my views on discourse in social policy, current events and culture, I'm happy with 100 % of the so called Dark Webbers getting more attention; in some cases it's largely karma for the smear artists and in other cases it's great for social advancement.
-
I am a believer in the marketplace of ideas where good ideas win out. This cannot work if we want all ideas of a set group of people who disagree with each other to all get the same amount of prominent attention because they're united by being disliked by another group.
-
One or neither of S Harris & J Peterson can be right on truth. It can't be both. The fact they are both unjustly smeared by same people isn't a good reason to want both of their ideas to gain prominence. We can oppose the smearing & still think some ideas better than others.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As an aside, how’s that draft going Helen?
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.