7 ms·
Didn't I just say that I agreed with the core argument of the article? I just wanted to make sure we all understood that this isn't a case of a "woke" (for lack
by lordlic 7y ago
Didn't I just say that I agreed with the core argument of the article? I just wanted to make sure we all understood that this isn't a case of a "woke" (for lack of a better term) person concerned about moderating the worst excesses of the movement, it's a case of someone who wants to dismantle the whole thing.
And it's absolutely relevant what a person "is." If NRA TV uploaded a special report on gun control, it matters that you know it was produced by NRA TV. I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point.
Finally, I didn't defend students/academia reacting incorrectly to the professors, I just said I understood. A lot of people are (rightfully, I think) sick of neoliberalism's "free marketplace of ideas" approach to permitting right-wing toxicity, and can get carried away when they think that's what a speaker is relying on. That doesn't make them automatically right.
- _vertigo 7y agoI don’t necessarily disagree that it _matters_, but why does it matter, and how much? Why can’t you believe that you’re having to defend the point? What bearing does who someone is have on the actual _substance_ of an argument? Personally I think that who someone is is absolutely useful information because it can contextualize the intent of an argument and provide a hint as to the biases of the person making the argument, which is a useful tool for thinking critically about the argument. However, when weighing the merit of the argument, it doesn’t matter who is making the argument. That’s why I took issue - you said that the reason the italicized portion was needed was because without it you sound a lot like a conservative. That’s weighing the merit of the argument based on what kind of person makes it rather than the substance of the argument itself.