The differences between the groups are so stark, any person that is interested in looking will see them. A person that doesn’t is choosing to not look. This way the bully type of feminist gets to go about bullying women by lumping them with the far right, a very handy thing in this new religion.
I’m not going to quote (and quote quotations) here; but scroll down a couple of paragaphs and note the part where Ludlow points out his misappropriation and misuse of a speech by Mussolini, thereby making a false claim. In a junior student, this might be forgivable; in a graduate, culpable. In an academic writing professionally, it does begin to look a little as though he, er, might sometimes not care about truth.
Again, we see Stanley blurring the distinction between conservatism and fascism, warning us that if we don’t mend our conservative ways we’ll be goose-stepping our way to a very bad end. His conviction seems to be that anything that moves an inch to the right of this week’s common wisdom among bleeding edge progressives is putting us on the fast train to fascism.
In other words he seems to be a tad simplistic in his thinking. We’ve certainly been seeing a lot of that in his Twitter persona.
I’d love to see a discussion between JCJ and this guy.
He’d be complaining that she’s too sweary and using that as an excuse for not being able to say anything very smart within two minutes, guaranteed.
I’d much rather have a drunken argument with Jane than with Jason. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the best criterion by which to judge someone, but it has served me well these last forty years or so.
He doesn’t know what hate is, either. He projects a lot of hatred, though.
The differences between the groups are so stark, any person that is interested in looking will see them. A person that doesn’t is choosing to not look. This way the bully type of feminist gets to go about bullying women by lumping them with the far right, a very handy thing in this new religion.
The “not caring about truth” bit comes over as a bit rich – to see why, have a look at this review of his book on fascism http://quarterly.politicsslashletters.org/fascism-doesnt-work-like-that-a-review-of-jason-stanleys-how-fascism-works/ .
I’m not going to quote (and quote quotations) here; but scroll down a couple of paragaphs and note the part where Ludlow points out his misappropriation and misuse of a speech by Mussolini, thereby making a false claim. In a junior student, this might be forgivable; in a graduate, culpable. In an academic writing professionally, it does begin to look a little as though he, er, might sometimes not care about truth.
Another useful bit from that review –
In other words he seems to be a tad simplistic in his thinking. We’ve certainly been seeing a lot of that in his Twitter persona.
I’d love to see a discussion between JCJ and this guy.
He’d be complaining that she’s too sweary and using that as an excuse for not being able to say anything very smart within two minutes, guaranteed.
I’d much rather have a drunken argument with Jane than with Jason. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the best criterion by which to judge someone, but it has served me well these last forty years or so.