= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (200)
This is a really great take on why use of privilege-based critique in (often leftist) public discourse is flawed:
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/privilege-leftist-critique-left/?fb_action_ids=10152177872632732&fb_action_types=og.likes
(Tl;dr: it's both malicious, because it resorts to using essential features of interlocutors against them--ie, quasi-ad hominems--and fallacious, because it fails to explain why the un(der)-privileged can offer arguments that work against their own interests.)
Does the article say anything that shouldn't already be obvious to the average LW reader and is therefore worth reading?
It says: "don't hate the player, hate the game."
I'm not sure what the average LW reader knows.
I consider it likely that there are LW readers (both left and right) who don't know there's opposition to the privilege model from the left.
I think the idea that shooting people down based on perceived privilege is an ad hominem is fairly straightforward and obvious.
Well, it's still encouraging to get a feedback that the public sanity waterline is higher than absolute zero.
Nothing is "straightforward and obvious" for everyone. Especially when it's somehow related to politics.