There is credit due to both Einstein and Chomsky for waxing philosophical on a number of things. Einstein credited his scientific discoveries in part to various readings in actual philosophy, and Chomsky displays a similarly long and deep reading list. Whether they’re right or not doesn’t mean they didn’t/don’t have relevant expertise: (e.g.) I was amused about a year ago reading an interview with Chomsky where he remarks on the fact that unlike Adam Smith’s right-wing fans he had actually read all of *The Wealth of Nation’s* and come to very different conclusions about it’s in it - which is a very long and dull task to set yourself just to dunk on libertarians.
There are still people out there who think - in the current context which he has done his minor part creating - that naming and shaming the guy who is a *fucking public figure* is a major problem of our time
Reminder that it is still not allowed to do that on this sub because we don’t want to get shut down but *Jesus Fucking Christ*
And it’s worth saying that if you think giving a literally **open and public** opinionator their actual name when you comment on their **open and public** opinions there’s a pretty reasonable expectation that you should be able to hold them to account
Like fuck: I’m a total nobody in the grand scheme of things but I’m not ashamed of my shit on social media because I know for a fact that I’ve not said anything entirely abhorrent on twitter or whatever which would get me “cancelled” the way Alexander has
For fuck’s sake: this is a man who got a conniption about a left-wing feminist - who literally writes under a byline which includes her own name - for addressing her own critics IN HER OWN FUCKING NAME and then called it some kind of address to the world and poutingly called it “untitled” - fuck that guy
tl;dr Trump is not actually openly racist, liberal media is overreacting. Scott seems to have his own personal definition of racism and complains when nobody else is using it.
Some hot takes:
- Trump has expressed (token) support for minorities while campaigning for president and therefore can't be racist
- There are almost no white supremacists
- Dog whistles don't exist
- The "some, I assume, are good people" speech is totally fine, actually
- building your campaign around building a wall to keep the Mexicans out is equivalent to voting for a fence ten years ago
- most Muslims are white, therefore calls to ban Muslims is just normal concern about terrorism. A real racist would call to ban Hindus
- Trump believes lots of crazy things, therefore his racist beliefs aren't notable
I can't believe your comment made me go back to SSC, I need a shower.
> Trump has expressed (token) support for minorities while campaigning for president and therefore can't be racist
literally argument that only holds if you are a 10 year old
Scott Alexander Nosurnamegiven, one of the great public intellectuals of our time.
Thumb on the pulse.
History has validated him and shown us all how wrong we were.
truly the Nostradamus of our time
I haven’t read the post mentioned in the OP; can anyone give me a tl;dr?
This article has been burning a hole in my brain all day