Thread by @deonteleologist

It’s true: I made a mistake. On Twitter dot com! So I issued a correction. The point Wokal is taking me to task for here is arguably the most inconsequential thing in the entire thread. Great place to start! 🧵

Wokal didn’t do his research.

I wrote a tweet in the thread AND a correction.

Wokal read the thread, not the corrections, and thought I didn’t do my research.

What Rufo wrote is a blatant falsehood. It amounts to “Commie Crenshaw says White bougie Black prole lulz.”

What Crenshaw claims in the excerpt is simple: both CRT and Marxism begin by appealing to a social ontology which is obscured by that society’s dominant self-conception.

This one just pisses me off. The level of intellectual laziness on display. Analogy:

Sam claims Chris is wrong for suggesting CRT thinks truth doesn't exist.

But Michel Foucault says we can never achieve perfect objectivity, there's no God's eye view

Here Wokal tries to come to Rufo's defense by employing literally the exact same fallacy for which I was criticizing him.

Then Wokal pulls this tweet out of some random conversation from March to try to tie it into a gotcha, as he seems to think he has cornered me into some kind of full-blown race determinism. Absolute nonsense. "Simulacrum situation." Listen to Crenshaw, lol

Blah blah blah who needs reparations for 400 years of injustice, they'll get over it, read Thomas Sowell, etc....

I say read MLK.

Now Wokal is mind-reading me and referencing shit I've never seen before. Had to look this up, turns out someone said something about birds being white supremacy.

Remember this, it'll be crucial for Wokal's conclusion: I am not charitable to others' views

Before we get to the last part of the thread though, let’s take a look at how many of my objections debunking Rufo’s dogshit book @wokal_distance IGNORED ENTIRELY.

By my count, here are the first seven:

And 3 more. So in a thread that is supposed to show that I don’t treat Rufo fairly enough, the evidence presented for this is an utterly inconsequential mistake (which I explicitly corrected) and then a series of quibbles with the facade of intellectual rigor.

Wokal tells us there is a “subtle sleight of hand,” and then “a fallacy going on” because Rufo explicitly rejected white identitarianism...

Two weeks after I posted the thread. 🤦‍♂️

In the first screenshot there he also tries to say the parallel I am drawing is not justified because the White people discussed in the paper are talking about the right to culture, not civil rights.

FACT CHECK: False. The right to white pride/culture is separate. I was clear:

Wokal slips from “CRT is critical of mainstream liberal civil rights discourse” — just as Martin Luther King Jr. was — to “CRT says rights don’t work, gotta try something else.”

Just so lazy. I provide specific examples of Rufo’s claims mirroring KKK claims

“Didn’t deal with everything Sam said”—understatement, but I appreciate the honesty. Btw, I never said Rufo was a white supremacist; I said he exemplifies 4/5 tenets.

Chris Rufo is absolutely a liar; that’s been proven conclusively elsewhere. Like here:

Wokal’s criticism of me on Lindsay and Pluckrose is that I am too uncharitable to them. (It’s also following up a tweet where I admittedly took an L for phrasing the initial claim very poorly.)

Here are two fairly ordinary paragraphs from Pluckrose (first two) and Lindsay (second two). Who’s got the problem with being charitable? Or is it only bad when the other team does it, @wokal_distance? I only ask you remain faithful to your principles. [fin]