= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on Open thread, Feb. 01 - Feb. 07, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (177)
I am calling him a prototypical feminist (which is distinct from a feminist - that modifier is there for a reason) because he's failing in the same way feminists do, for the same reasons. He exemplifies a common failure mode of feminism.
I'm not sure about your use of language (I'm guessing at what you mean because some critical words are missing, there), but I am precise about what words I use, and why.
Drawing your judgement from the academic literature on evolutionary psychology is failing for the reasons feminists fail? That as far as Geoffrey Miller goes.
As far as Tucker Max goes, are you aware you Tucker Max happens to be and why he's hated by feminists?
I'm not commenting on Geoffrey Miller, no matter how many times you bring him up.
And nope. No idea who Tucker is, and don't really care. I read a few pages from the site you linked, and my criticism is exactly what it is: He moves women from one box, and into another. He fails for the same reason many feminists do; because he believes in a virtuous stereotype, regards other stereotypes as unvirtuous, and attempts to stereotype in a more positive way. Charitably, he recognizes that the stereotype is a problem, but is incapable of moving past a social level and into the level of individual, so supplants one stereotype with another. Uncharitably, he just thinks other people's stereotypes are wrong, and that his is correct.
What feminists think of him doesn't matter to me in the least. More, that feminists hate him doesn't surprise me, since they're fundamentally similar with slight aesthetic differences, which is always a recipe for deep hatred.
Calling a person who got famous enough to hit the TIME 100 by telling the world a lot of nonvirtues stories about himself "believing in a virtuous stereotype" mistakes who he is.