I’m sorry, I cannot stand yet another “scholar” mixing neoliberalism
with capitalism, social ideology with economic ideology.. and I believe
implying the good ’ol “communism-capitalism” stupid dichotomy.
Not to mention all the reminder linking the dots craze.
Pinker criticizing this
and this
is not even an attack of the ideas behind marxism, let alone I don’t see
where in the hell it should negate the merit of “working through the
political consequences of one’s research”. The reminder political
implications sound mot then.
Peterson’s “benign and platitudinous argument that we have to be
race- and sex-blind and treat everyone as individuals” is not “radical
libertarian logic”. And it’s not *even* a reason in itself to be against
affirmative action, provided you admit at least socioculturalinertia to be a thing.
As we all know these two are.. morons, to say the least, considering
they always seem to “push” in (or should I say to?) one
way only, without acknowledging they leave open quite despicable
thoughts.. But
hell, intent is in the eye’s of the beholder too I guess?
Why was all this forcing to the point of disingenuous needed? Why
tarring everything with the same brush worse than they’d even
do? You could have made the usual disparaging article on, say, the
funny ideas over jews’ intelligence inheritability.. Instead we
got this misinformative crap?
tl;dr
Also, needs nsfw tag.
Isn’t Steven Pinker on the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs?
Someone blend their faces
I’m sorry, I cannot stand yet another “scholar” mixing neoliberalism with capitalism, social ideology with economic ideology.. and I believe implying the good ’ol “communism-capitalism” stupid dichotomy.
Not to mention all the reminder linking the dots craze. Pinker criticizing this and this is not even an attack of the ideas behind marxism, let alone I don’t see where in the hell it should negate the merit of “working through the political consequences of one’s research”. The reminder political implications sound mot then.
Peterson’s “benign and platitudinous argument that we have to be race- and sex-blind and treat everyone as individuals” is not “radical libertarian logic”. And it’s not *even* a reason in itself to be against affirmative action, provided you admit at least sociocultural inertia to be a thing.
As we all know these two are.. morons, to say the least, considering they always seem to “push” in (or should I say to?) one way only, without acknowledging they leave open quite despicable thoughts.. But hell, intent is in the eye’s of the beholder too I guess?
Why was all this forcing to the point of disingenuous needed? Why tarring everything with the same brush worse than they’d even do? You could have made the usual disparaging article on, say, the funny ideas over jews’ intelligence inheritability.. Instead we got this misinformative crap?
And I just stopped 1/4 through the article here.