4 ms·
Bit by bit, we've got: > it's all sort of comically smug Tonal critique, valid but not worth much. > everybody else in the entire world is wrong, and here is
by rcoveson 4y ago
Bit by bit, we've got:
> it's all sort of comically smug
Tonal critique, valid but not worth much.
> everybody else in the entire world is wrong, and here is a 7-point axiomatic derivation proving it
What argument doesn't take this form? If you're making an argument you yourself agree with, then yeah, the implication is that you disagree with people who disagree with it. Axiomatic derivations will be involved, because... why wouldn't they be?
> much of it depending on specific definitions of specific words
I think what you must mean here is surprising definitions of certain words (otherwise, again, what argument doesn't have this characteristic?). I personally was not surprised by the usage of any of the major words in the article. Certainly some of the words are really "improper nouns", like "diversity", but it's clear from context what the different sorts of diversity being discussed are.
> Check-mate, atheists!
Maybe tonal critique?
- tptacek 4y agoIt sounds like your problem with my argument about the poor reasoning here is that I made it in too few words? I'll say it again: he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI, even institutionalized DEI; he thinks instead that he's checkmated it by attempting to reconcile a dictionary definition with the rationale the Supreme Court used in the 1970s to defend Affirmative Action.
- phantom_of_cato 4y ago> he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI Sure, it would have been a better article if they had done that. What are some good books covering that? I haven't really heard much of an argument for it, merely brow-beating and social pressure. Ibram X. Kendi doesn't count, his arguments are ridiculously facile.
- matthewrobertso 4y agoCan you highlight where you made that argument the first time? I read your first comment as entirely concerned with tone and don't see where you are discussing lack of engagement with an argument.
- tptacek 4y agoIt's a 127 word comment (not counting the snarky aside at the bottom), of which approximately 40% of the words make the points you're looking for directly, in a pair of sentences, one in the first paragraph and one in the second. I think you might have to not want to see them not to see them.
- matthewrobertso 4y agoIt might be obvious to you but I sincerely don't see it. The first paragraph is about the source reducing things to axioms. The second paragraph is clearly about tone. Where is the criticism of the content and not the tone of the article?
- tarboreus 4y agoI'm an unrelated person driving by, and I actually scrolled up to try to find the sentences (i.e., the ones about an argument), and I'm not seeing them, either. I have a PhD in English, so I'm not totally terrible at reading carefully.
- abnercoimbre 4y agoTried my best, not seeing it either.
- rcoveson 4y ago> I'll say it again: he hasn't actually managed to engage with the argument for DEI, even institutionalized DEI The use of the definite article here is surprising. I get the impression you have an argument for DEI in mind that you think everybody has in mind. Which one is it?