Ah yes, the timeless debate strategy: when in doubt, casually lob an explosive moral allegation into a conversation about epistemology. A classic. Nothing says “engaging in good faith” like interrupting a discussion of power and knowledge with, “By the way, the author might be a monster, so let’s not think at all.”
Oh, I totally get it. Feels like the sky is falling and our sacred values are hanging by a thread. Must be exhausting to be the lone guardian of all that’s good and right. But what if the world’s actually more balanced than we give it credit for and all this panic is just fear reacting to more fear? And whipping out shame to keep everyone in line creates more shame which leads to more fear and so on and so forth? What then?
Ah yes, the timeless debate strategy: when in doubt, casually lob an explosive moral allegation into a conversation about epistemology. A classic. Nothing says “engaging in good faith” like interrupting a discussion of power and knowledge with, “By the way, the author might be a monster, so let’s not think at all.”
Oh, I totally get it. Feels like the sky is falling and our sacred values are hanging by a thread. Must be exhausting to be the lone guardian of all that’s good and right. But what if the world’s actually more balanced than we give it credit for and all this panic is just fear reacting to more fear? And whipping out shame to keep everyone in line creates more shame which leads to more fear and so on and so forth? What then?