Bunch of more post modern pointless words that come to bullcrap conclusions
You didn't read any of it, did you?
Didn't even read the link
1 Like
Not clicking this either
Good. It's absolutely moronic
Imagine going to school for that many years and still not being able to identify when something is bullshit on a basic level
In a perfect and just world people like ewiz would be locked in a padded room and examined extensively (by a certain type of professional who shall remain unnamed so my post does not get removed for "gaslighting") until we understand where we, as a society, went wrong
rude
is " tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynists" a real thing? the author seems to be trying to explain how there is an antifeminist establishment but it seems a stretch to me to identify three successful people with opposition views and declare them to be representatives of a fuzzy misogynist enemy faction.
That's not at all what the article is about. Like how do you get that when the sentence immediately following what you quoted is:
yes its one thing to say there are three mainstream scholars with opposing views.
and its another to say that there are various groups perhaps with antifeminist motivations.
its a third thing to say that the scholars represent the consensus of said groups, constituting a mainstream antifeminist establishment.
like, its vaguely an ad-hominem attack, implying that mainstream scholars like Pinker are associated with unsavory groups like billionaires and the alt-right. i want to know if there is some basis behind that, and also if "tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynists" is a useful categorization of... something.
That is literally not even close to the argument they made. Reread it and try again
Yet what generated the Areo articleâs viral lift were strong endorsements from the usual suspectsâSteven Pinker and Jordan Peterson, both senior psychology professorsâand the budding reactionary Yascha Mounk, a Harvard lecturer in government but also head of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. The orthodoxy these men represent is not an orthodoxy of scientific legitimacy but rather the emerging consensus of tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynists.
hes saying there is an orthodoxy of mainstream people supporting the hoax. but you shouldnt trust the orthodoxy, they are wrong. they represent "tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynists", who have various reasons to be antifeminist, not the scientific reason they purport to.
thats quite a nontrivial accusation i think.
like, surely none of the guys mentioned would agree that they represent the consensus of other groups. they would just claim to have their own views. so an accusation such as this ought to be carefully justified, i think.
Holy shit, how can you misread something this simple? They can represent an orthodoxy that's pushed by some group and have no affiliation with that group. The author never claims they're affiliated
well, hes saying that the hoax got artificial publicity because it got supported by the orthodox scholars on twitter. and he discredits the orthodox scholars by saying their orthodoxy is not based in legitimacy but orthodoxy pushed by the groups.
maybe it could be said that they are orthodox because the groups support their views. alright. then my question still stands: is "tech bros, Davos billionaires, and alt-right misogynists" real? is this a characterization of some powerful antifeminist interest that boosts pinker's popularity and biases academic orthodoxy against womens' studies, etc?
3 Likes
what the fuck is your problem god DAMN
1 Like