Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's another hit piece, but actually started off pretty well. There are moments of clarity when it isn't just transparent smearing, disingenuously referring to other hit pieces as "legitimate criticism" and certitudinous declarations of things as if they were facts and not contentious. In particular, these are well said:
These concerns are worth talking about.
Then it goes off the rails completely right around the point where it defends Marxism as a political philosophy and accuses Peterson of being the one to employ McCarthyist tactics. No mention of Shepard's star chamber experience. Much of the rest of it is just smear after smear and deliberate misrepresentation. Totally undercuts the good parts of the article, the legitimate cautions on offer, with hyperbole and nonsense. Which is pretty unfortunate.
I still haven't seen a better critique than James Lindsay's.
|
How isn't marxism a legitimate political philosophy? It's literally one of the foundations of modern social science and extremely important. It bothers me that campus has effectively become a neo-marxist hot bed (i.e. it's the only tool in the toolbox so everything looks like a nail) but to suggest it's not a valuable tool in examining social hierarchies and systems is dishonest.