3. The discussion in question (links in next tweets): I think it was worth having it. The deliberate smearing of Pinker made it possible, perhaps it all happened because lots of people have more subtle (but substantial) criticism of Pinker to offer? (AKA an axe to grind?)
-
Not only does he not challenge the status quo, he celebrates it (Better Angels). Citing metrics of improvement is fine but it doesn't erase growing inequality, he benefits. Doesn't make him a monster, just your average shitheel. People naturally want to maintain their advantages.
This is just another version of conservaties are shit people, progressives are much better people. But then I guess people naturally want to maintain their moral advantages...
-
-
I'm not making the claim that progressives are much better. This is my thread about how the far right facilitates "progressive" implicit bias thru the Overton window.https://twitter.com/depistemology/status/951793685498417152 …
-
You could make precisely the opposite argument. The far Right discourse/action can have the effect of shifting things in the opposite direction. (Certainly happened after WW2, for example.)
-
I think that it will eventually have that effect but I hope it doesn't have to entail a holocaust. And it hasn't worked that way for the past thirty years.
-
Again that's not obviously true. For example, one could see Corbyn's emergence in the UK as a response to austerity, Tories and also moderate Labour Party.
-
Yes, and Bernie Sanders in the US. And many "progressives" in both countries consider them wild eyed radicals. It would be extremely weird and disturbing if there wasn't a backlash from the left to Trump et al. The question is who is enfranchised?
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.