"Do these anti-woke people know about Eberhardt? Maybe. But I think strategic ignorance is a pretty realistic explanation as well."
Sorry, but I think normal ignorance is probably the culprit. There are far more intellectuals worth reading than there is time to read. Unless a writer is very prominent, the default position should be to assume that they've simply never heard of her.
But wouldn’t you say it’s strategic by not seeing if there are better arguments opposing your opinions that aren’t from the most mainstream people on the planet in that realm?
I’d say so. It’s not that you have to read everything. But if you’re taking a hardcore stance on something, to not do minimal research isn’t about time. It’s intentional.
I suppose it depends on what you expect from the Twitterati. Personally, I don't expect much so I mostly ignore them. The algorithms reward them for hot takes in vast quantities with no regard for quality, so that's what they provide.
Peterson is a more tragic case. If you watch his lectures from a decade ago in Toronto, he was a surprisingly good teacher and borderline deep thinker. When he got involved in public issues, he changed to become more effective in that environment. He became a caricature of himself for audiences who think a nuance is a rope with a knot in it.
"Do these anti-woke people know about Eberhardt? Maybe. But I think strategic ignorance is a pretty realistic explanation as well."
Sorry, but I think normal ignorance is probably the culprit. There are far more intellectuals worth reading than there is time to read. Unless a writer is very prominent, the default position should be to assume that they've simply never heard of her.
But wouldn’t you say it’s strategic by not seeing if there are better arguments opposing your opinions that aren’t from the most mainstream people on the planet in that realm?
I’d say so. It’s not that you have to read everything. But if you’re taking a hardcore stance on something, to not do minimal research isn’t about time. It’s intentional.
I suppose it depends on what you expect from the Twitterati. Personally, I don't expect much so I mostly ignore them. The algorithms reward them for hot takes in vast quantities with no regard for quality, so that's what they provide.
Peterson is a more tragic case. If you watch his lectures from a decade ago in Toronto, he was a surprisingly good teacher and borderline deep thinker. When he got involved in public issues, he changed to become more effective in that environment. He became a caricature of himself for audiences who think a nuance is a rope with a knot in it.