Much of the IDW ended up in anti-vax, fad dieting, post-fact Trumpism, and “just asking questions” conspiracy theorizing.
There’s a lesson there.
There’s a lesson there.
I think the lesson is be wary of confusing iconoclasm or contrarianism with genius.
Sometimes thinkers are out of the mainstream not because they’re serving up brilliant insights the powerful don’t want you to hear, but because they’re bullshitting and/or recycling rejected ideas
Sometimes thinkers are out of the mainstream not because they’re serving up brilliant insights the powerful don’t want you to hear, but because they’re bullshitting and/or recycling rejected ideas
https://twitter.com/Imran1759/status/1389188071061561352
I disagree. “Steelmanning” is in large part a trick.
Don’t strawman. Be fair to positions you’re critiquing. Those are important.
But in practice, many calls to steelman are effectively “no fair pointing out flaws in the argument I made; argue against something smarter instead.”
Don’t strawman. Be fair to positions you’re critiquing. Those are important.
But in practice, many calls to steelman are effectively “no fair pointing out flaws in the argument I made; argue against something smarter instead.”
https://twitter.com/EdeleMancini/status/1389191043883601923
No. And this isn’t the choice.
Thinking the only options are All X or All Not X, as if mainstream and iconoclast are tribal identities, is part of the problem.
Listen to various arguments, consider multiple perspectives, don’t assume mainstream automatically equals bad (or good).
Thinking the only options are All X or All Not X, as if mainstream and iconoclast are tribal identities, is part of the problem.
Listen to various arguments, consider multiple perspectives, don’t assume mainstream automatically equals bad (or good).
https://twitter.com/historyboomer/status/1389194880635768833
Exactly. “Understand and accurately describe” isn’t remotely new.
So the claim is either historically inaccurate self-aggrandizement, or, as used in practice, an attempt to deflect criticism as unfairly biased and plow ahead with weak ideas rather than engage on actual substance.
So the claim is either historically inaccurate self-aggrandizement, or, as used in practice, an attempt to deflect criticism as unfairly biased and plow ahead with weak ideas rather than engage on actual substance.
https://twitter.com/cjtotalbro/status/1389203381684559875
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
