So:
1 - you’re kind of lumping me in on a side largely based on being against your side, kind of like the thing that weistein was warning against at that 600 stamp. Irony.
2 - so are you taking issue with me not addressing you in your response to mups about that timestamp… when you’re not engaging me on my comments to you on it? Seriously? Am I reading that right?
As for bringing up the wrong timestamp, it’s not to obfuscate, it’s to point out part of why this hasn’t been clear, so when you act like it’s super clear, there’s some nonsense going on in your view of the clarity of points being made.
Very generous of you to assume some grand strategy on my part, but sadly I have no such noble goal at heart
Mostly I go after what I see are the most ridiculous comments, left and right (do you remember our sanctimonious exchange?). I don’t like stupid bullies*, no personal offence intended. Many people are quick to take offence these days, but I find it offensive when people refuse to recognize and learn from mistakes. Especially when they call me a lying racist hypocrite (which seems to only come from the left, but in fairness I don’t have to interact with the far right very often).
Despite our early minor clash, I think it is super cool that you’re asking me questions like we are equals and adults. Thanks for not talking to me like I’m a stupid asshole, even if at times I give that impression.
*not that everyone i disagree with is a stupid bully, but such people exist. if i’m being a stupid bully, please put me in check (but be ready to back it up!)
I mean, if someone wants to make a straight up argument about free speech and college campuses, that’s right there for the taking. I think there could be valid points there.
But when you hold up people in groups like these as evidence for legitimacy of the argument, knowing or not, you may be a pawn for that group, being bankrolled by Koch money, or whatever source from the right that wants to hijack that argument for their political agenda.
Yes. My advice applies to you though, or anyone else who hold up Peterson, etc, people like this. You could be short-circuiting your own argument.
Better just to make a point void of using people who ‘legitimize’ it, to avoid getting thought of a part of whatever agenda they might possibly follow. Food for thought.
Have you considered criticism of the intersectionality movement, their ideas and solutions may have some validity and not be borne from manipulated souls doing the bidding of the mega rich billionaire donor class and the real pawns in all this are the ardent followers of a cult who haven’t thought everything all the way though at the behest of other mega rich billionaire types?
That doesn’t acknowledge arguments. It is a tin-hat-worthy ad hominem. I don’t have much interest in the general ideas of the people you have listed, but that doesn’t credibly acknowledge a single argument of theirs let alone the toupee that shall not be named. Yes, there is money and politics in academe. Are you going to throw out universities because they have been funded by oil and tobacco? Probably not, and you’ll have to make a good argument that that is a false equivalence. Try not to dodge, you may of course choose not to answer.
There are a lot of suspicious things about the connections with all of those people.
So when formulating arguments, it’s best for anyone to stand on their own 2 feet, and not be a potentially unwitting pawn to these personalities and their agendas.
That’s why I always laugh when people quote Shapiro or Dinesh whatshisface, or Peterson. I think many are just oblivious to the real workings behind the scenes.
That isn’t to say they’re all corrupt and bought and paid for, but better just to avoid them altogether I’d say, if the shoe ever drops on one and you don’t want a record of being associated with defending or espousing them.
She’s an anti-feminist with some academic credibility, a darling of the right but still sensible (not like that despicable Ann Coulter, who I can’t stand). She makes good points that largely stand because the other side doesn’t have a case. Beyond some obvious points, though, I don’t find her very interesting. She is brave if possibly opportunistic.
I used to also watch Janice Fiamengo videos, the earlier ones were good but I haven’t followed for years. She’s very similar but Canadian; my personal experience matches with her descriptions of universities very closely
edit: also, @tempogain, there is cammile paglia, another female academic along these lines who i think talks some sense
Well, you do you, it always weirds me out when people have a pulpit to give their own opinions but spend their time regurgitating, and talking about the opinions of others (more ‘known’) people. On any topic, not just politics.
I dunno why they do it, maybe something to do with a lack of self-belief or something, maybe they think nobody will take them seriously on their own, I dunno what it is. Still weird to me.
And again, if you do it enough, one can end up looking a fool down the road.
