I do not know you. I do know in almost 5 decades of life that your exploration traffics in an area extremely popular with white supremacists: Economics of slavery; minimization of the causes leading to the Civil War; arguments wrt to culpability of African tribes in the Diaspora>
-
-
and as such, because people who you do not want to be associated with deploy the same arguments, it is incumbent upon you to distinguish yourself. Nobody can, especially with the rise of the Alt Right, assume good will. Positioning does that, even if you find it onerous.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @robinhanson
"bring back slavery" is unwarranted hyperbole. TBF I assume a degree of good will & regard this as a communication error abstract thinkers often make. But academia is not somehow immune to white supremacist attitudes. Also, not to be too pedantic, but age undermines your cite:pic.twitter.com/ef3aVhl4DN
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @robinhanson
Wait, your refutation is in-group signaling rather than addressing the specific points made. Me: You cannot explore a morally fraught area regarding a person's choice w/o regarding the psychological dynamics impacting that choice. You: See they don't get it + chan-speak? Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Wavinator @robinhanson
I don't see the point in talking to you if I don't think you understand what I am saying. You are not using the same rules for interpreting speech. I think I understand your speech and thought norms, but I think they are not universal, and don't work well for rational discourse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @robinhanson
This is an intellectually lazy cop out and quite disappointing. If you cannot hash out ideas with someone who does not believe as you do but who is speaking to you with civility, you condemn yourself to an ideological bubble.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @robinhanson
You may be correct & describing a blind spot I cannot see. However, I submit to you that your construction here allows you to evade the heavy lifting required to translate ideas into different domains. One can have a productive convo w/even a true believer if committed enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
There are rules for intellectual discourse that are not shared by most people. One of the rules is that your moral preferences and personal worth are to be held separate from what you consider to be true. If you refuse to do this, we cannot discuss what’s true.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @robinhanson
Granted, however while I am not an academic, I find it surprising that the idea of "those who suffer abuse may experience cognitive impairment in rational decision making related to the abuse" would in any way be a controversial position.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.