Do you normally label entire groups this way? Seems sloppy to me.
OK. People tend to do that, certainly. Lived experience and emotionally-resonant narratives seen as truth and objective knowledge denied. We see it most in the populist right and the intersectional left. This is why treating people as individuals is important.
-
-
Can you explain your reasons for deriving the final sentence from the previous two? They would seem to me to be contradictory.
-
Tribal groups take on metanarratives which suit them, whether postmodern or post-truth or religious or whatever. That's why I don't like the idea of an 'intellectual dark web.' These are very different people & should be evaluated as individuals.
-
You use the word ‘tribal’. What makes one set a ‘tribe’ and one ‘’different people’, to be ‘evaluated individually’?
-
Is it not possible to see individuals, identify common features and then conceive of them as a group or class?
-
Yes, of course. I'd say these people don't fit that in any meaningful way but then I evaluate people by their principles & epistemologies.
-
Indeed. And we can see where those come from (they didn’t invent the ) and what they do (their uses and effects). Which is why the Jungian mystic and professional atheist belong in the same group.
-
I would ask you to explain that but I really don't want to spend any more time on this. You do you.
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.