He’s not interested in the details

Breathtaking.

Kathleen Stock has a thread this morning.

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1135159042513526785

Quoting the rest for ease of reading.

Rather, they’re concerned with what Austin would call perlocutionary effects of my arguments. That is, the indirect effects of my arguments on feelings, thoughts, and actions of others, whether or not these are grounded in charitable or accurate interpretations of my views. In vain do I ask critics to engage with my writing (pinned) in a fair, non-snarky manner typical of their philosophical engagement with others. I’ve come to realise most won’t do this, because for them it’s not the point. The point is, my views allegedly lead to harm: fear/anxiety, people allegedly leaving the profession, and possible violence to trans people by others. Yet it seems to me that they’re equally or more guilty of indirectly causing such things. To uncharitably construe my views as harmful, for people who haven’t read them, is self-fulfilling, with respect to exactly the sort of harm they claim to be most worried about: spreading fear and anxiety amongst trans people. If they described me more accurately and less febrilely, this effect could be limited. So I finish by reminding my critics and other readers of my actual, stated views, with italics for emphasis. (See also my pinned tweet). I argue for:

Then she tagged several of those people. One was Jonathan Ichikawa. He replied.

To repeat:

Speaking for myself, I agree that:
1) I’ve argued that your rhetoric is doing great harm.
2) I’m not interested in the details of your arguments.

In other words, “I’ve accused you of doing great harm, I can’t be bothered to find out what you’ve actually argued.”

As I say: breathtaking.

12 Responses to “He’s not interested in the details”