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 -
W odpowiedzi do to @jasonintrator@TessaMakesLove i jeszcze
Interestingly, Haidt's original tweet is an example of the rhetorical maneuver the article warns us against: "I am being vilified by people who would fail an informal logic course. Have they never heard of affirming the consequent?"
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @sergioten@jasonintrator i jeszcze
Couldn't resist posting here another recent instance of the same rhetorical move (they are legion, of course). Climate change denialist Tobin attacking Greta Thunberg in the Federalist:pic.twitter.com/3F1Ny1CuwK
4 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony
Again, we are dealing with two disparate issues. One issue is that demagoguery is the foundational stone of the American the pop culture (and media culture in particular).
-
-
W odpowiedzi do to @TessaMakesLove@sergioten i jeszcze
Because it is so, the financial framework of the society rewards extreme and distorted use of language a lot better than it does healthy use of language, regardless of topic or angle.
0 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionychDziękujemy. Twitter skorzysta z tych informacji, aby Twoja oś czasu bardziej Ci odpowiadała. CofnijCofnij
-
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.