I suspect half of what pisses people off about acad leftists even when arguments are good is language. It is not that it is arcane (it is, but easily learned) but that it seems to assume a reader is either hostile or an unquestioning ally.
No room for just 'curious, listening'
Conversation
Replying to
Always felt most appealing acads were masters of analogy - a unique ability to downsample their lofty ideas into relatable, perhaps even punchy hooks.
Common denominator of Sagan / Cathy O'Neil / Hofstadter / Kahneman / deGrasse Tyson / Hawking / Deutsche ?
1
2
Replying to
I'm talking specifically about academic leftist humanities people who talk academic pomoese... Derrida/Foucault stuff.
3
Show replies
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Replying to
That language style fits the writers in my experience. “You’re with us or a nazi” isn’t helpful if you’re drive-by curious.
Replying to
I think it goes beyond language. The general attitude there is that idle curiosity is bourgeois elitism. The luxury of the privileged.
1
2
5
Replying to
Not sure about 'either hostile or an unquestioning ally' -- there's a tendency toward rhetorical flourishes that, to an analytic philosopher, look like they belong in a manifesto, but calling that hostile is like calling a teenager's graphic tee hostile: misallocation of audience






