I'd argue the signatories to that latter are exercising what has become known as "Kolmogorov Complicity," (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-comp

I'd argue the signatories to that latter are exercising what has become known as "Kolmogorov Complicity," (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...) The simple question is whether one recognizes the standing of the critics, and the legitimacy and sincerity of their criticism. It's whether the term, as they say in a typically passive voice, "must be contextualized against ongoing issues of neocolonialism," - by whom and why? If you accept the policing of language based on exogenous criteria, you therefore accept the authority of those police in the material content and direction of the discipline. However, their criticism isn't about reason, it's about politics, and mistaking the latter for the former was what we will look back on as the fatal naivety of our institutions.