I love this, and for once I'm happy that I'm too insignificant to ever be on the receiving end of one of your transmissions! But, by publishing this, aren't you doing exactly the thing you told us not to? You're are engaging with these people and giving their "ideas" an audience. I didn't know who that man was before I read your piece. I had to look him up and was, in this way, exposed to a whole Wikipedia article about him. I am personally immune to right-wing idiocy, I hope, but is every one of your readers? On the other hand, you are right, we cannot let them do their thing without protest and without voicing our opposition. It's a difficult choice.
Slightly longer: just ignoring this won't make it go away. What I am aiming at here is the symbiosis between journalism and "philosophy," which has been a syndrome for quite a while, multiplied by the tendency to amplify the ideological effect of certain statements. Engaging with ideas is not the issue. In a way to put it thus is to have conceded a lot of ground. It's HOW we engage with statements that present themselves as idea-like. I think that reading my piece will help to make readers immune to (for example) Wikipedia entries.
Brilliant, necessary, and merciless.
Oh! Thank you! xo
I love this, and for once I'm happy that I'm too insignificant to ever be on the receiving end of one of your transmissions! But, by publishing this, aren't you doing exactly the thing you told us not to? You're are engaging with these people and giving their "ideas" an audience. I didn't know who that man was before I read your piece. I had to look him up and was, in this way, exposed to a whole Wikipedia article about him. I am personally immune to right-wing idiocy, I hope, but is every one of your readers? On the other hand, you are right, we cannot let them do their thing without protest and without voicing our opposition. It's a difficult choice.
Slightly longer: just ignoring this won't make it go away. What I am aiming at here is the symbiosis between journalism and "philosophy," which has been a syndrome for quite a while, multiplied by the tendency to amplify the ideological effect of certain statements. Engaging with ideas is not the issue. In a way to put it thus is to have conceded a lot of ground. It's HOW we engage with statements that present themselves as idea-like. I think that reading my piece will help to make readers immune to (for example) Wikipedia entries.
No I don't believe I am.