@HPluckrose's Threads
Yep.
It's because they are reacting against universal liberalism & science which they have wrongly diagnosed as oppressive. Sexuality is biologically real, naturally variable & morally neutral. Equality goals are best achieved by recognising this. 1/2
Race, on the other hand, seems to be largely superficial variation in surface features and racism to be a cultural construct. Therefore, equality goals are best achieved by recognising this & ceasing to regard race as significant ethically or socially. 2/2
And I always ignore philosophers telling me that I should not be engaging with feminist & critical race epistemology as it actually is in order to show the problem with it, but be doing philosophy & epistemology using their approved methods & terminology even tho its irrelevant.
They get so angry & bitter. Desperate to tell me I am stupid & ignorant & embarrassing. This doesn't give the impression of sincere individuals who want to genuinely discuss the best way to understand the kind of scholarship I critique & have also successfully reproduced.
Not all philosophers who think we need to address ideas by calling upon a long philosophical history of their development are spiteful & vicious. Some are friendly & sincere & we can agree to disagree on whether this is the best or only way to look at them. Not for my purposes.
@PsychRabble @clayroutledge @NickWolfinger @learnfromerror @PTetlock Yes. I don't disagree with that. Hence viewpoint diversity.
@PsychRabble @clayroutledge @NickWolfinger @learnfromerror @PTetlock Oh! Perhaps the confusion arose coz I said I don't want a politically balanced university because this seemed to me like giving all ideas equal merit which is stultifying but I could be understood as not recognising the need for a mix of views to look at things from all angles?
@PsychRabble @clayroutledge @NickWolfinger @learnfromerror @PTetlock And this is why you said I was mixing ideas and people? I am not meaning that. It's the same rule I have for Areo. I welcome writers from all over the political spectrum & of all faiths & none but if they're arguing only from political/religious speaking points, I won't publish.
Here is the best way to deal with dense postmodern texts if you want to read & understand one and are not familiar with the language. If you just dive straight in, you are likely to give up on page two after an hour of trying.
Instead, go online & search for as many summaries synopses as you can. .edu cites, blogs, even Wiki and put them on one document. Read them quickly in one go without stopping to think or rereading any section. Make no notes. You cannot trust these sources' comprehension.
The point is not to try to understand the text before reading the text but to familiarise yourself with the language & concepts in context almost subconsciously. Then delete them all & go to the text.
