Max Castle

No reason to give a point by point rebuttal of such a poorly thought out critique, but let me point to one thing that is indicative of the whole. Look at the critique of 'determinism' in u/acc. (1/9)https://twitter.com/nihilaxis/status/1041856136364797953 …

To be plain, this is an intro to philosophy critique of determinism. But again, benefit of the doubt, right? Here is a question, if we determined (at the level that the author is critique) how could we decide NOT to write a blog? (3/9)

It would not be as though one group of people are determined and another not. One person is determined to write and one person is not. But this is not what is discussed in u/acc. There the question is whether humans are capable of interceding in the movement of capital. (4/9)

U/acc is a theory of capital, or a meta-theory of capital. There are questions about the human subject and Capital-as-subject but those questions are so easily dismissed. The author is incapable of function at the intellectual level necessary to think these things through. (5/9)

Her latching on to Noys' 'post-grad' ridiculousness is evidence enough for that. Such critiques are not serious and she confuses Noys' rhetorical flourish for actual thought. As for the article, there is simply no there there. (6/9)

Her discussion of Land is equally stupid. There are places to hit Land but she never even approaches them, preferring instead to remain in the safe embrace "but he's a racist!" (7/9)