-
-
Yeah, but WIll, again here's the tendency to analogize the political to theoretico-scientific practice of some kind. It's not a hunch and a theory, it's a political situation.
-
Douthat, not a liberal by his own admission, can seize on this as benefitting his politics, and has, let's be honest about it.
-
Sure. But what's so wrong about that? Folks who think that, say, capitalism has bad consequences tend to jump on the right sort of bad things happening as partial confirmation. I can't say "actually, you hack, it's caused by something else," without begging the deeper question.
-
BTW, I don't think we differ much on the first-order question about the roots of incel terror. We're differing on the meta-debate about whether there's something insidious about people who disagree with our assumptions about the first-order question.
-
Sure, I think that's largely right. I have a much larger issue with Hanson because of how his argument about redistributing sex implicitly relates to his discussion of the harm of ahem "mild rape." Perhaps unfair to read them together, but he just defended both. He and to a
-
a (somewhat) lesser extent Douthat seem completely focused on how all these changes affect men. So it's not just that I have a competing explanation but that I think their explanation fails to account for the perspective of those subject to misogynistic violence
-
I dislike Robin's right-insensitive consequentialist mode of analysis, which amplifies white guy economist blind spots about structural power relations. But he's also among the most intellectually honest, truth-motivated people I've ever met.
-
I don't think sincerity is really a great defense for the guy who defended rape.
- 9 more 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.
