Why we need to talk about climate change, or denuclearisation, or censorship, so on and so forth. Example is Peterson's need to talk about religion. It would appear that we negotiate when we mention it.
-
-
-
There are lots of things we might need to talk about of course, so pointing that out is by itself not insidious. But if I say e.g. "why we need to talk about the racism of vegans", I can anchor in the listener's mind that vegans are racist without having to support that claim.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"X considered harmful" sounds so much more classy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, one of many patterns used in politics. Invisible logic is quite insidious and influential. Another one: so-and-so did x!! (indicating that doing x is clearly an aberration vis-a-vis what others do.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s a hideous need to repeat hoping for a better answer .
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.