Uhh, this sentence from @curaffairs piece on Peterson is basically indistinguishable from "So you're saying it's okay for women to eat their husbands because of praying mantis thing?"pic.twitter.com/fHagdOIMON
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There has to be a word for the fallacy where every descriptive claim that does not directly support the desired normative one is assumed to commit a naturalistic fallacy.
(This sounds like something Scott Alexander would already have already written a 50-page essay about though...)
I think there's confusion about which premise is under pressure. The lobster undermines the idea that hierarchies are man-made, remaining neutral on normative questions. I think his position is that they're good and bad — explaining why the author believes Peterson "vacillates."
You can tell the reviewer is dishonest because he describes assuming a morally neutral stance (X is neither good nor bad) as “vacillating.”
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.