Many topics make a lot more sense if you understand information hazards- the recognition of an information hazard can cause a puzzling drop in epistemic standards-puzzling because honestly revealing you are trying to avoid an information hazard is itself an information hazard
Example - Race as a concept is an information hazard because it can make society more racist. So people argue against the epistemology of categorization (ie we should not categorize people even if it is informative) but they argue it without referencing the information hazard
Critical studies sees itself as morally superior because they are using rhetoric and queering epistemic standards to dismantle what they see as information hazards around predicting human behavior & enforcing hierarchy without weighting the fact they are also dismantling science
It increases empathy to some of these concerns- many feel they're saving society from a bad fate. When you point out an argument isn't logical the outrage guards against revealing they are protecting us from an information hazard- which is as bad as revealing the infohaz itself
Check out @ConceptualJames great interview on Rogan which made me think about how many of these movements can be considered as building a rhetorical wall around -what many people consider - information hazards
youtube.com/watch?v=FtNW3I…
youtube.com/watch?v=FtNW3I…
