3 ms·
The first thing I'll say is that the beginning of the article kind of violates the spirit of the journal. I looked at the about section of the website, it looks
by noobermin 6y ago
The first thing I'll say is that the beginning of the article kind of violates the spirit of the journal. I looked at the about section of the website, it looks like as the name suggests, they believe in persuasion and arguments and reason and connect it with their defense of free speech. Unfortunately, the tone at the beginning seems to be in a derisive tone to those I assume it wants to reach, which makes it not very effective in that effort to pursade.
That said, if you can wade through it (which is difficult as most of the comments here suggest), the take away is good I think, and even moderate. It makes the point that all relationships can be dangerous with respect to the possibility of finding one's heart broken. "Intimacy requires vulnerability; the joy of human connection always comes with the risk of being hurt," and that some people who engage in metoo discourse tend to wrap real power imbalance and consent issues in with things that don't really have that, like the example of Warren Ellis cited here. She argues that some of the rhetoric around metoo has created a culture that treats all relationships as something potentially dangerous, and also critiques some of the rhetoric as being dis-empowering of women.
These are all reasonable critiques I think. Hopefully they won't be lost in the snide tone of the opening.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoI instantly get my hackles up whenever anyone or any outlet mentions they advocate free speech, atheism and reason; while I believe in all of them, it's often used as a shield and an excuse for having beliefs that they know aren't acceptable to a lot of people. It brings to me associations of insufferable smugness. Being an atheist isn't a personality. Everybody believes and advocates free speech - for themselves. Reasonable debate is a two-way street.
- noobermin 6y agoA lot of people use the idea of free speech disingenuously. I am not sure if this site is doing so here, but I personally believe in it as a principle. I'm not sure if I agree with their about page though, people are genuinely not as open to persuasion as we wish they could be.
- Udik 6y ago> the tone at the beginning seems to be in a derisive tone I am frankly curious of what exactly you perceive as "derisive" in the first part of the article (first paragraph?). I have to say that I subscribe to every single line of this article, which I find well argued and perfectly aligned with my views and concerns. And I am frankly surprised that anyone can describe it as "difficult to wade through". I find it very clear, simple, and absolutely reasonable even assuming a point of view different from my own.