for a piece that was supposed to be published last summer about such an interesting topic, it's weirdly slapdash and shallow
-
-
Obviously, he doesn't say what they are, but his rant is extremely similar to what Nazis on Telegram talk about when describing "hiding your power level" (ie expressing fascist views without being overtly white supremacist or antisemitic)
-
I mean, sure, I'm obviously (and unashamedly) setting myself up as the evil Stalinist censor from his stupid essay but I don't think it's malicious "insinuation" to read between the lines of someone who waxes effulgent about the noble art of writing between the lines
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
My brief is against a sloppy piece in the NYT. Your brief is against what a writer won’t say but “obviously” secretly believes. (Unfalsifiable, no?) That writer takes 5000 words to clear his throat. Sorry, but I can’t think of a less profitable rabbit hole to run into.
-
How the hell do you know it's sloppy (ie inaccurate) if you don't actually read Scott's articles Christ the most bizarre thing about this mess is the sheer number of people claiming to be his fans who apparently read much less of his work than his haters
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is there a word for this position? Other than rationalist? Because I would really like a word for this belief that there are truths that are not politically correct that you cannot speak about
-
It's not ideal because there are other famous people in other fields who share the name but I usually see this described as "Straussian", because Leo Strauss made such a big deal about this as a philosopher (and was so generally creepy about it)
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.