A secret to sanity when talking politics/policy: refuse to engage debates expressed in terms of purposely-vague terms like "socialism" "feminism" "justice" "nationalism" etc. Rephrase in terms precise enough to allow careful precise analysis. Perhaps engage w/ those accept this.
A move I wish people made more often.
C.f. this great blog post by @everytstudies http://www.everythingstudies.com/wordy-weapons-of-is-ought-alloy …pic.twitter.com/wcv9lPRSel
-
-
Good post; thanks for the pointer to it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm probably late to the philosophical party, but when I read: “This [words = maps] bridges the old division between “is” and “ought”.” I *actually* – not exaggerating – stood from my chair and said, "holy shit." Coz: holy shit. I could hear the sound of my philosophy changing.
-
That makes me so. happy. to hear :). Few things are more satisfying than a good viewquake! Another post from John’s blog gave me the same “holy shit // am I late to the party?” feeling. Dunno if you’ll find it as valuable as I did, but just in case:https://everythingstudies.com/2017/05/29/the-good-the-true-and-the-undefined/ …
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The full context is important here. It's supposed to be used when there's one particular claim, phrased in a particular way, that is in dispute. It's not a general thing.
- 2 more replies
-
-
-
Great idea. We shouldstart using this everytime idiot pundits & shillsters refer to a non-state, voluntaryist crypto currency they don't like as "fiat".
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.