3 ms·

Scott reads and cites an incredible amount of research, look at any of his "much more than you wanted to know" posts. If he doesn't cite critical theory, it's m

Scott reads and cites an incredible amount of research, look at any of his "much more than you wanted to know" posts. If he doesn't cite critical theory, it's more because he doesn't find critical theory authoritative.

claudiawerner 7y ago
(Edit: this comment responds to sections of the parent comment that were edited out, and I appreciate the edit.) > If he doesn't cite critical theory, it's more because he doesn't find critical theory authoritative. (Neither do I.) That's fine. I don't think it's "authoritative" (whatever this means in the context of considering different viewpoints and teasing out the value of intellectual work) either, though it's a little rich that a blogger is so dismissive of a whole mode of investigative thought that has pretty strong support in post-war philosophy. Even then, why not consider their opinions (which are popular, rightly or not), and criticize them? >Also, not to put a too fine point on it, but you're a Marxist. I think this is the real "what the hell". My ideological position, or lack of one, has nothing to do with the validity of my criticism. Nothing in my post specifically relates to Marx at all, and my criticism would be the same even if he hadn't written an article on Marx via Singer. "You're a Marxist, and Scott has been attacked by Marxists" is a pretty poor attempt at hiding an ad-hominem. Not to put too much of a fine point on it. I have never heard of that Wiki, or anywhere else that criticizes Scott, on Reddit or elsewhere. I'm not involved in any online drama of the sort, and I don't associate with people who are, to be honest. If that's what they're doing to Scott, then I condemn their actions - especially doxxing and messaging his friends. Regardless of my ideological position, that's unacceptable. >So you, a Marxist Let's get this straight. Your only reason to claim I'm a Marxist is because I have an interest in Marx's work. I do not consider myself a Marxist in the strictest sense of the word[0], though I do find his work more valuable than some others may. But I could say the same thing about a host of other philosophers and economists I listen to. It's absurd that a comment about Scott has provoked such a reaction that you've decided to start making a big deal about a critical comment. I'm sorry if my comment seemed in poor taste, or I just go around the 'net criticizing Scott. I don't, and I actually like some of his essays, in a roundabout way. My only intention was to expand on GP's point about Scott in comparison to PG. [0] About a third of academic sociologists consider themselves Marxsits. Marxism is one of the most popular heterodox schools in economics. It's a dominant current in contemprorary political economy.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  I think there are interesting arguments to be had about meritocracy for example. But in my experience talking with critical theory folks, they have a different criterion for evaluating arguments: something like "has this argument historically served to reinforce oppression or to challenge it", instead of "is this argument true". So inviting them to a meritocracy debate is like inviting the guy who plays a saxophone solo whenever he hears any six-letter word - now everyone has to watch what they say, for reasons unrelated to truth.
- solveit 7y ago
  > Even then, why not consider their opinions (which are popular, rightly or not), and criticize them? They really aren't popular in any real sense. I would go so far as to say that anyone who thinks they're popular isn't part of Scott's audience.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    I'd say they definitely are, to people studying the subject matter; it's hard to find a sociological analysis of contemporary capitalism (in terms of culture, alienation, fetishism or otherwise) in the literature that doesn't at least mention critical theorists, and it's hard to find studies on political deliberation that don't mention Habermas. The point is that if Scott were to engage in such literature, he'd have to address some of the claims anyway. Not being part of Scott's audience (and therefore he should have no concern with mentioning their work which is often highly relevant to the topics he writes about) seems to just speak in favour of an echo chamber rather than considering and criticizing ideas that are already out there and hold sway with people informed on the topics.

claudiawerner 7y ago

(Edit: this comment responds to sections of the parent comment that were edited out, and I appreciate the edit.) > If he doesn't cite critical theory, it's more because he doesn't find critical theory authoritative. (Neither do I.) That's fine. I don't think it's "authoritative" (whatever this means in the context of considering different viewpoints and teasing out the value of intellectual work) either, though it's a little rich that a blogger is so dismissive of a whole mode of investigative thought that has pretty strong support in post-war philosophy. Even then, why not consider their opinions (which are popular, rightly or not), and criticize them? >Also, not to put a too fine point on it, but you're a Marxist. I think this is the real "what the hell". My ideological position, or lack of one, has nothing to do with the validity of my criticism. Nothing in my post specifically relates to Marx at all, and my criticism would be the same even if he hadn't written an article on Marx via Singer. "You're a Marxist, and Scott has been attacked by Marxists" is a pretty poor attempt at hiding an ad-hominem. Not to put too much of a fine point on it. I have never heard of that Wiki, or anywhere else that criticizes Scott, on Reddit or elsewhere. I'm not involved in any online drama of the sort, and I don't associate with people who are, to be honest. If that's what they're doing to Scott, then I condemn their actions - especially doxxing and messaging his friends. Regardless of my ideological position, that's unacceptable. >So you, a Marxist Let's get this straight. Your only reason to claim I'm a Marxist is because I have an interest in Marx's work. I do not consider myself a Marxist in the strictest sense of the word[0], though I do find his work more valuable than some others may. But I could say the same thing about a host of other philosophers and economists I listen to. It's absurd that a comment about Scott has provoked such a reaction that you've decided to start making a big deal about a critical comment. I'm sorry if my comment seemed in poor taste, or I just go around the 'net criticizing Scott. I don't, and I actually like some of his essays, in a roundabout way. My only intention was to expand on GP's point about Scott in comparison to PG. [0] About a third of academic sociologists consider themselves Marxsits. Marxism is one of the most popular heterodox schools in economics. It's a dominant current in contemprorary political economy.

cousin_it 7y ago
I think there are interesting arguments to be had about meritocracy for example. But in my experience talking with critical theory folks, they have a different criterion for evaluating arguments: something like "has this argument historically served to reinforce oppression or to challenge it", instead of "is this argument true". So inviting them to a meritocracy debate is like inviting the guy who plays a saxophone solo whenever he hears any six-letter word - now everyone has to watch what they say, for reasons unrelated to truth.
solveit 7y ago
> Even then, why not consider their opinions (which are popular, rightly or not), and criticize them? They really aren't popular in any real sense. I would go so far as to say that anyone who thinks they're popular isn't part of Scott's audience.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I'd say they definitely are, to people studying the subject matter; it's hard to find a sociological analysis of contemporary capitalism (in terms of culture, alienation, fetishism or otherwise) in the literature that doesn't at least mention critical theorists, and it's hard to find studies on political deliberation that don't mention Habermas. The point is that if Scott were to engage in such literature, he'd have to address some of the claims anyway. Not being part of Scott's audience (and therefore he should have no concern with mentioning their work which is often highly relevant to the topics he writes about) seems to just speak in favour of an echo chamber rather than considering and criticizing ideas that are already out there and hold sway with people informed on the topics.