Lmao, the Dockkk of Stockkk is out there excusing herself with "listen, I'm not saying all of the individual members of that group are degenerate sexual deviants, that would be transphobic, I'm only saying they're typically degenerate sexual deviants, which is different and fine"
I laugh, cryingly
Anyway, the moral situation is this. The profs signing the Stockkk Defence Force letter are not motivated by transphobia. They're an elite closing ranks to protect their own from the prospect of moral criticism and public denunciation of any of their wrongs, including transphobia
The moral situation is that some people want to leverage the position they occupy in the hierarchies they are members of to create a zone *thoroughly devoid* of moral standards binding for themselves and those like them. Trans rights are just the canary in the mine.
That's what alarms them, that people they do not consider, for any practical purposes, peers, dare to appraise their behaviour critically, and that others make a genuinely *moral* claim on them to behave according to the norms of Reason, not strict social advancement.
I believe, strongly, that the conflict here is, at its base, a conflict between the moral point of view and a sort of boundless, aggressive nihilism that can only perversely masquerade as ethics as long as morality remains theoretical, impotent to make any real practical claims.
Don't believe me? Notice how the conversation is fine as long as it remains theoretical. You can talk about gender all day, and it's fine. Make a moral claim, or state that a moral norm has been violated and --academic freedom! Silencing! Orwell! Defamation per se! LALALA
I can not express the intensity of my feeling of this, except in reporting that it's so intense I have difficulty communicating it linguistically, but I consider these people *so pathetic*. Weak, pathetic, cowards with neither consciousness of feeling nor clarity in thought.
I mean come on. Philosophy prides itself for training people to keep a mind so open it could leak all over the floor. Let's dispassionately consider whether disabled people are worth living or someone should choose to starve rather than "steal" a potato, looking at all sides.
Why can't people dispassionately consider whether these egregious bloggers are transphobic, looking at all sides? Why are they so alarmed and lose their cool about this tiny philosophical proposition? Doesn't this give the game away?
I guess this is what infuriates me. It does give the game away, and it gives away *that* it is a game for them, for people like Singer and Velleman and the other frightened manchildren, and I don't want to play another game, it's not a game from the perspective of people like me.
Otherwise Singer wouldn't see himself in Stock when others criticise her behaviour. He'd not have such difficulty applying his utilitarian standards to her behaviour with the callousness he's known for. But he sees himself in her, it's the critics that are alien to him.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with ergopraxis

ergopraxis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ergo_praxis

14 Jan
I love this metaphor because it brings to light the hilarity of DDE intention-mongering. You see, if the mass murder of undesirables by the nazis was a merely foreseen but unintended consequence of their political program, if they did not target jewish people *as such*... what? Image
One funny thing about """merely foreseen""" consequences of my actions is that they do happen to be subject to my choice in much the same way as those I "intend". I am aware of the impact of my choice on the world, and I willingly make it, and it is my will that brings it about.
So, to be philosophical, if we separate what I knowingly cause from what I intentionally cause, what does this shaved intention actually amount to? In both cases it's a free exercise of my will in action (that is: my choice) that causes these things to occur.
Read 5 tweets
9 Jun 20
The idea that the police is necessary to maintain order is hilarious. The police is not actively supervising virtually any of the areas that remain as peaceful as the next one, and policing is actually linked with increased violence and conflict, but that's not all.
If people were in fact inclined towards serious criminality and violence, the police would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to do anything about it. They are massively outnumbered. Order is maintained because people are conflict averse. Not because of any sheepdogs
That's why the tired trope of all social order collapsing into generalised outbursts of destructive violence when the police disappears is a reactionary delusion, and a pretty bad mark even on otherwise good films or literature.
Read 7 tweets
3 Jun 20
Honestly, the prevalence of these inane, and frankly embarassing, rituals even on the left make me think there's some shared underlying cultural factor controlling for the success of over the top evangelical conservatives in the US.
The US is a society whose superego ran away with the proverbial ball and people of different backgrounds just look for different flavours of theatrical excess and moralising charlatans to deal with the debilitating trauma that this causes. This is my professional diagnosis.
Submissive gestures, renunciations, ritualised apologies, sacred vows and self-flagelation are both unbecoming for free beings and also easy and useless. They may relieve the unwarranted guilt of neurotics, but they don't change any social system or anyone's social position in it
Read 8 tweets
29 Mar 20
Piracy is literally the main thing worth praise about the internet. It's unequivocally extremely good. It means freeer and more equal access to culture for people who would otherwise have no access to it, it means functional academic research,it means a vibrant creative community
Try to imagine the internet without piracy. Even what we recognise as original creations from video essays to memes aren't reliably devoid of copyrighted content. It would be a pittiful sterilised emptiness interrupted only by carefully curated corporate content, ads and paywalls
People who stand against piracy stand against possibly -and without any exaggeration- THE most positive thing about our modern way of life. Might as well demand that we go live in caves if that would maximise sales.
Read 14 tweets
26 Aug 19
@StartlinglyOkay I hope you won't mind that this will be a relatively extensive thread on the various issues with full-face (implicitly religious) veil bans. I tried to rein it in a bit, but I would not exaggerate the success of my effort (I failed completely).
@StartlinglyOkay The first thing to consider is the particular piece of legislation, which might be connected with criminal or (more usually in the continent) administrative ("civil" in the anglo-saxon area) sanctions and hence raise different constitutional issues.
@StartlinglyOkay From what I gather from the sources I've found, the statutory provision you're interested in is a "soft" administrative ban on full-face veils in general (religious or not) in closed public areas following the french and belgian cases.
Read 75 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!