Thread by @deonteleologist

I thought this preview was bad. Then I listened to the entire interview. This might be the worst single interview from any of the Grievance Hoaxers, and I have put myself through a mortifying amount of content from these people. Let me set out the highlights briefly [1/n]

Here's Peter claiming all teaching programs in the US "participate in some variant of CRT or the Woke ideology..." in ways that lead K-12 teachers not to form beliefs based on evidence, to be unwilling to revise beliefs, to have no semblance of rationality. I have no words. [2/n]

Mask all the way off, he praises the Strongman Fascist Dictator model of addressing the problem of Wokeness, namedropping Viktor Orbán and saying his method is the only way because things like peer review and reason aren't used in Studies departments. (This is just false.) [3/n]

Compare this with Cynical Theories. This quote appears in a chapter that Peter praises for its spirited defense of liberalism. And it expresses the exact opposite of Peter's bootlicking. (Of course, James has abandoned this--rather, it's likely only Helen ever supported it) [4/n]

Peter's fantasy dialogue w/ Woke academic: "I don't value evidence, only lived experience" "How do we adjudicate b/w conflicting experiences?" "Most oppression variables wins." "How do we adjudicate b/w different variables?" "Don't ask me that, that's a microaggression." [5/n]

I was struggling to articulate how absolutely delusional it is for Peter to think that this is what Studies departments are like, but Peter unwittingly expressed it for me, giving a perfect diagnosis of his own intellectual pathology in his attempt to diagnose the Woke. [6/n]

Peter gives what is arguably the most chickenshit analysis of intersectionality of all time based entirely on a caricature you might get from a student activist in a Ben Shapiro novel spliced with a Tumblr leftist's misunderstanding of standpoint epistemology. Pure garbage. [7/n]

He throws a fit about the slogan "#BelieveAllWomen" -- who actually advocates just suspending all doubt always whenever a woman testifies that she was mistreated in some way?

Oh, that's right. Nobody, but Tucker Carlson sure would love it if we thought every leftist did. [8/n]

Here are two pieces on the difference between #BelieveWomen and #BelieveAllWomen
washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/styl… nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opi…

To cap it off, here is a man whose literal job description is "I teach people how to think critically" exemplifying the embodiment of the ad hominem fallacy.

Peter, you godforesaken intellectual infant: "pronouns in bio" is not a fucking argument. Please, please, grow up. [fin]