If you want to defend something defend it; don’t hide that defence in the form of an empty critique of ‘naming’ classes of things. Bring forward a proof that they aren’t mostly doing it for the money and that their ideas transcend the mere statement of opinion.
-
-
Well, when names are part of a claim about the nature of a thing then they are worth caring about. But this is mostly about form and function - and I’m getting no answers on that, only complaints that it’s unfair and mean of me to reject a name.
-
You are? I didn't see that so can't comment. I don't care what you think of the name. This seems to be a subjective thing. I don't like it either. I'm more concerned about labelling intellectually & politically diverse people as a way to reject all of them. Tribalism.
-
Well, this all started with me registering an objection to a name. On the other hand, if we can’t use single terms to name classes of things then we can’t get very far in thinking about them.
-
Precisely the reason those individuals should not be given a group name. They are not in a class. They are politically & ideologically diverse & better considered that way. Me, on this.pic.twitter.com/xozgVU796e
-
Things can be unlike in one way and alike in another.
-
Yes, Alan, they can. And people inclined to lump together everyone who criticises the academic and SocJus left will lump everyone from left-liberals to neo-nazis together because they think tribally.
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.