There are a group of names that keep popping up that people will insist that are more progressive than you think or that need to be heard because they are being silenced. Who can be against free speech; right? In reality, whatever else their main focus is, they are usually spouting some serious strains of Islamophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, hate for immigrants to rival the GOP, or patriarchal gender binary defense to rival the most conservative church. They will talk about free speech and human rights so that you think they might be progressive - until you realize these rights they are talking about are only for them. They are uninterested in yours. Who are they? Generally white guys who think everything is equal so why do these other groups need any more rights? It's infringing on their freedom to call people by the pronouns they ask. They whine about #metoo going "too far." They don't see color. Women owe them sex and ant prove capitalism is natural. They love to opine about the outrage culture of the left and identity politics.
This is a fun little satire.
New Jordan Peterson book asserts all dogs are boys and all cats are girls
I fell into the intellectual dark web awhile back in explaining why Jordan Peterson is not as great as Joe Rogan fans insist. At times I have emphasized the fact that he spawned men's rights activist groups of entitled male "victims" of feminism. Other times, I have cited how he is, some argue, hateful toward trans people and thinks feminists are evil. Men have trouble connecting to these themes apparently.
On one hand, he uses science like a social Darwinist, which is to say wrong - he doesn't know anything.
On the other hand, lots of Big Thinkers and New Atheists or whatever we're calling them overlap with this problematic bunch for some benevolent (or not so benevolent) sexism, racism, etc. Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker come to mind. They are known for being critics of religion and don't always say objectionable things. They come across as reasonable and people you should be allies with in the protection of separation of church and state. But some will cite scientific research or statistics with the criticism that seems to support racist or Islamophobic stereotypes, but them will warn against such - as though to say "I'm not racist, but..." and then go on to say something very racist. Racists and Islamophobes love these guys. And they have the added benefit of these guys being respected neuroscientists and thinkers rather than a Milo Yiannopoulos type spouting hateful tropes. Not everyone who enjoys these skeptics or religion critics is racist or sexist, but they often can't see the problem with them due to their privilege.
In "Why Do People Love to Hate Steven Pinker," you can see a little of the disconnect in this description of Quillette in which I agree with the unnamed latter critic that Quillette is a center for white male grievance:
In Down Girl by Kate Manne, she shows how Steven Pinker indirectly used someone else's sexist argument to deny that the Isla Vista killings were caused by misogyny. He might be in favor of progress, but that doesn't mean he's not also sexist or unable to see the problem (and denying one exists!) owing to his privilege.
The AV Club has an interesting take on the infamous Bari Weiss NYT article on the subject:
The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it
This is a fun little satire.
New Jordan Peterson book asserts all dogs are boys and all cats are girls
I fell into the intellectual dark web awhile back in explaining why Jordan Peterson is not as great as Joe Rogan fans insist. At times I have emphasized the fact that he spawned men's rights activist groups of entitled male "victims" of feminism. Other times, I have cited how he is, some argue, hateful toward trans people and thinks feminists are evil. Men have trouble connecting to these themes apparently.
On one hand, he uses science like a social Darwinist, which is to say wrong - he doesn't know anything.
On the other hand, lots of Big Thinkers and New Atheists or whatever we're calling them overlap with this problematic bunch for some benevolent (or not so benevolent) sexism, racism, etc. Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker come to mind. They are known for being critics of religion and don't always say objectionable things. They come across as reasonable and people you should be allies with in the protection of separation of church and state. But some will cite scientific research or statistics with the criticism that seems to support racist or Islamophobic stereotypes, but them will warn against such - as though to say "I'm not racist, but..." and then go on to say something very racist. Racists and Islamophobes love these guys. And they have the added benefit of these guys being respected neuroscientists and thinkers rather than a Milo Yiannopoulos type spouting hateful tropes. Not everyone who enjoys these skeptics or religion critics is racist or sexist, but they often can't see the problem with them due to their privilege.
In "Why Do People Love to Hate Steven Pinker," you can see a little of the disconnect in this description of Quillette in which I agree with the unnamed latter critic that Quillette is a center for white male grievance:
"He’s also been a supporter of and contributor to Quillette, the online house journal for the Intellectual Dark Web, the loose collection of academics and writers who see themselves as forging a centrist path in a rigidly ideological culture. Quillette is either “unique and indispensable,” as Pinker puts it, or a “center for white male grievance,” as one critic described it. The Quillette ethos, to the degree that there is one, tracks closely with Pinker’s thinking. "
In Down Girl by Kate Manne, she shows how Steven Pinker indirectly used someone else's sexist argument to deny that the Isla Vista killings were caused by misogyny. He might be in favor of progress, but that doesn't mean he's not also sexist or unable to see the problem (and denying one exists!) owing to his privilege.
"Again" because Pinker used Heather Mac Donald to do his anti-feminist dirty work for him in the immediate aftermath of the Isla Vista killings. pic.twitter.com/reMgaJyQxa— Kate Manne (@kate_manne) March 12, 2018
The AV Club has an interesting take on the infamous Bari Weiss NYT article on the subject:
The only thing to do with the "intellectual dark web" is laugh at it
"The ridiculousness of the article is pretty clear. It takes the arguments of its subjects at face value, legitimizes the unironic use of “Intellectual Dark Web,” and generally reads as an apologia for those who, a few short years ago, were rightfully ignored for propagating bad arguments meant to give audiences reassurance that their worst instincts are, in fact, good to have. "
Hiya, I’m really glad I have found this info. Today bloggers publish just about gossip and net stuff and this is actually irritating. A good site with exciting content, this is what I need. Thank you for making this web-site, and I’ll be visiting again. Do you do newsletters by email?
ReplyDelete