4 ms·

The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory

The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. Flourishes are the right of all opinions and writing, but "cancel those with views they disapprove of", "effeminate and conformist" intellectuals (who, incidentally, aren't worth "winning over" by discourse and persuasive argument), "make sure AI doesn’t say anything politically incorrect", "shutting down woke activism", show that this author has substantially more names to call than articulable arguments. Also, the idea that there's an argument to be made that the "tech right" is somehow legitimized by a collection of tech bros who happen to lean that way isn't the compelling argument the author might think it is. The author doesn't improve from there. This article appears to offer little more than emotional reasoning for justifying ridiculous assertions, sometimes in stark and direct opposition to the actual world (embracing gender spectrum is actually part of transhumanism and extropianism, not discouraged by it - duh!). The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. In other words, it doesn't go anywhere and lacks any real content.

the-printer 3y ago
I don't agree with the author's motives, but some of his observations are valid. In general, this piece is articulate and "goes somewhere". Albeit, it does suffer from being a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming navel-gazey in a way that most Substack articles are. I'm under the impression that you may be in denial of the direction that it points favorably toward (the appeal and potential of the "Tech Right" in the US). > The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. This argument is often tossed in the opposite direction. > The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. The irony of this statement is that whether the full sentence, "Traits like intelligence and work ethic, in fact all traits, indeed have a strong genetic basis," is advocating for eugenics can be interpreted as an attempt to "put words and intent" into someone else's mouth.

the-printer 3y ago

I don't agree with the author's motives, but some of his observations are valid. In general, this piece is articulate and "goes somewhere". Albeit, it does suffer from being a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming navel-gazey in a way that most Substack articles are. I'm under the impression that you may be in denial of the direction that it points favorably toward (the appeal and potential of the "Tech Right" in the US). > The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. This argument is often tossed in the opposite direction. > The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. The irony of this statement is that whether the full sentence, "Traits like intelligence and work ethic, in fact all traits, indeed have a strong genetic basis," is advocating for eugenics can be interpreted as an attempt to "put words and intent" into someone else's mouth.