Here's a bad kind of argument: If you favor X and some very bad people favored X, then you are wrong and, by association, bad. Here is @evefairbanks in WaPo likening me & others who favor “facts, reason, and civil discourse” to defenders of slavery:https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/29/conservatives-rhetoric-confederacy-south-civil-war/ …
-
Pokaż ten wątek
-
W odpowiedzi do @JonHaidt @evefairbanks
Not how I read this piece at all. The point is rather than defenses of reasonableness, civility, and free speech often function to normalize greed and self-interest, sometimes intentionally sometimes unintentionally. It’s a vital lesson of history; relevant eg for climate change
3 odpowiedzi 7 podanych dalej 74 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do @jasonintrator @evefairbanks
Agreed, they CAN function that way; she shows that they did. But why drag me, Harris, Weiss, etc into this? Is she asserting that we promote civility etc. for the money, or some other covert purpose? Yes. That's a serious charge to make w/o evidence, based on an association
7 odpowiedzi 2 podane dalej 47 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @JonHaidt @evefairbanks
Put it this way: she is saying you are like Rawls.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 6 polubionych -
I disagree. The ideals of free speech are being misused by the far right at the same time as they are being prominently trumpeted by liberals. Recent history shows how problematic it is to promote virtuous ideals eg free speech without being open about the danger of their misuse.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 9 polubionych -
I think the root problem is more, um, systemic. Everybody in "intellectual" professional fields is under great economic pressure to have the last word, or at least to assert their POV victoriously. It is very difficult to remain linguistically holistic.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do to @TessaMakesLove@jasonintrator i jeszcze
In practical terms, I don't think it's fair or justified to contextually compare
@JonHaidt to slave owners. It's not fair to do so because words have power and consequences. It is an ironic way of falling into a scholastic pitfall when criticizing the scholastic approach.1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 4 polubione -
There is no such comparison being made. Respectfully, it’s a bad misreading. Haidt et al are being critiqued for failure to discuss misuses of ideals, and hence obscuring the way bad stuff gets masked.
3 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 5 polubionych -
To be perfectly true to linear facts, I think
@evefairbanks alone could speak with certainty about how the parallel was intended. Anybody else's reading is an interpretation that is dependent on the individual emotional and cultural lens. But I did find the comparison misguided.1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 3 polubione -
Jason, I have spent 15 years making the case for pluralism, civility, and viewpoint diversity, in the academy and the country. Fairbanks does not critique my case. She just shows that some bad people also made the case, dishonestly. That is an argument by association, no?
6 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 11 polubionych
Jason, against my better judgement, I wrote a 700-word explanation of why I think why throwing Jonathan into the mix was unjustified. I couldn't get on with my day until I did. God I hate scholastic debates. https://tessafightsrobots.com/tessa-lena/eve-fairbanks-reasonable-rebels/ …
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.