This is such a terminally-online debatebro tactic too, making this accusation.
People like Jordan Peterson and his fans will refuse make clear statements because they rely upon vague allusions (and dogwhistles, of course) so they can play at motte-and-bailey tactics; if you respond to their poor attempt at making a point they'll object because it wasn't "what they meant" but the moment you ask them to be more explicit about their statements they'll treat you like you are being a troll and that you're sealioning them.
People like Jordan Peterson and his fans will refuse make clear statements because they rely upon vague allusions (and dogwhistles, of course) so they can play at motte-and-bailey tactics
Yesterday, I saw that with the "all governments do atrocities, actually" debate douche who refused to clarify, up or down, what that statement is supposed to imply except liberal nodding toward its vague wisdom.
So much of this shit is just piling on anyway. Like, what JBP says matters far less than the number of goons in the comments who will shout slurs at you for questioning his immaculate wisdom.
A comment section can break hard left or hard right entirely based on whether the readership is Peterson-pilled or not.
Exactly. The Audit podcast's takedown of PragerU really emphasizes how factual imprecision and "fuzzy" statements are an absolutely essential and insincere tool used to preempt any counterargument with "I didn't actually say that."
Socrates, famously a real toxic asshole who spent most of his time pretending to not understand
This is such a terminally-online debatebro tactic too, making this accusation.
People like Jordan Peterson and his fans will refuse make clear statements because they rely upon vague allusions (and dogwhistles, of course) so they can play at motte-and-bailey tactics; if you respond to their poor attempt at making a point they'll object because it wasn't "what they meant" but the moment you ask them to be more explicit about their statements they'll treat you like you are being a troll and that you're sealioning them.
Which, again, is why you should appeal to the stick early and often.
Yesterday, I saw that with the "all governments do atrocities, actually" debate douche who refused to clarify, up or down, what that statement is supposed to imply except liberal nodding toward its vague wisdom.
So much of this shit is just piling on anyway. Like, what JBP says matters far less than the number of goons in the comments who will shout slurs at you for questioning his immaculate wisdom.
A comment section can break hard left or hard right entirely based on whether the readership is Peterson-pilled or not.
Exactly. The Audit podcast's takedown of PragerU really emphasizes how factual imprecision and "fuzzy" statements are an absolutely essential and insincere tool used to preempt any counterargument with "I didn't actually say that."
Socrates was a tankie, turns out