The burden of proof is on you, the person making allegations. I read Scott's blog occasionally and don't really know if you're right or not, but if you want to prove you're right, do it. If not, this tells me all I need to know, too.
-
-
All the stuff that rationalists hate - "well-poisoning", "ad hominem", "Bulverism" It's the only thing that's actually relevant, it's the only reason to discuss them at all rather than ignoring them
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I mean, we've interacted enough that I assume you're familiar with my work on the subject. It's mostly idea based. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim it legitimizes neoreaction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not 100% convinced this would actually be effective at dissuading people from the ideas? If you *only* discuss them as people, and never, "this idea they hold is BS on its own merits" I suspect people would wonder what you're apparently hiding.
-
Yeah, I think that'd be true if the ideas were deceptively attractive for some reason and relied on things that needed an affirmative debunking. But neoreactionaries in particular position themselves as counterintuitive thinkers, who you need to study to understand.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
@roddreher is one if the"respectable" neo reactionaries who gets space in the NYT to tell us why transgender ppl are a threat to western civilization and Tudor era social ontology is what we should all be living in while we drink monk brewed craft beer and burn heretics.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.