the object of terrorism is to use violence to advance your political program, right? so, then all of a sudden, weird crackpot ideas about entitlement to sex are in the most important paper in the country. under a certain view, that's a success, correct?
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.
-
He simply did not.
-
Reductively consequentialist modes of analysis can't distinguish kinds of harms (pain is pain!). When rigorously applied, you're always going to ask "Why is X worse than Y?" when X really is worse than Y for non-consequentialist reasons, but have a hard time accepting the reason.
-
Yeah, I mean, I'm also a non-consequentialist so I disagree on that level. What was *ahem* creepy about Hanson's post was a) the idea that it was a puzzle as to why rape was more socially stigmatized than infidelity - not only the assumption that everyone is a consequentalist,
-
Part of the problem is that he's got a reductive account of moral avowal. He thinks that people say things are bad because it makes them look good to say it. And then he's got a sort of Darwinian account of why people want to look good.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I have no definitive opinion on the roots, I imagine there are a number of plausible explanations. a lot of them sound way too abstract to me. Who knows. My point is that they represent a completely unacceptable political position, and we should be extremely wary of...
-
...doing their political work in the guise of a free debate. There are non-negotiable principles involved.
-
or, to add, trying to use them to score political points in other other fights (against the sexual revolution or left-wing income redistribution or whatever)
-
well, is it the same fight as them? we should ask that—they both want to reinstutionalize some kind of patriarchical domination, but Douthat offers the consolation of religion...
-
domination with a warm glow
End of conversation
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.
