What Can a Stupid, Mansplaining Comment Teach You About Neoliberalism?
Holly Wood, PhD 🌹
38185

A sociologist major does not make a scientist. Your whole commentary neglects any substantive evidence, much less hypothesis testing of said evidence; to invoke the scientific method as cover, as you did, is a meaningless diversion behind perceived authority, and just one in a long line of logical fallacies committed in this driveling attack piece. When you did mention any potential evidence of societal detriment, it was totally irrelevant to the specific issue addressed. As were your ad hominem attacks on Brian, as well as your blatant reductivist trivialization of his comments as ‘mansplaining’.

No, I’m not Brian T. Edwards. Yes, I’m tempted to do some mansplaining. Though when I do it, it’s typically just ‘explaining’. And what Brian, in his abbreviated comments, and I are both actually doing is not ‘explaining’ but critique. For the record, I’m a woman (and with English as a fourth language so bear with me), but that’s totally irrelevant to anyone — a man included— disagreeing with me.

Let’s get a few things out of the way. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with all of what you say. But I will vehemently disagree with your characterization of what your saying as somehow authoritative, internally consistent, logically sound, or even considerate in any meaningful way — much less scientifically dispassionate.

Also, I’m going to do this quickly and without compensation, so it’s liable to be a mess — but sadly, I’m going to have to hold you to a different standard (given that it’s part of your professed occupation) and say you need to pay significantly more attention to syntax and grammar as well as overall argumentative structure.

From your misuse of ‘phenomena’ in non-plural settings, to your strawman constructions (in the ad hominem case of [1]Brian T. Edwards, [2]his argument as constructed reductio ad absurdum by you, and [3] the completely irrelevant example of Flint, MI’s water system as somehow being an analogous social ill), posturing behind authority (‘scientist’), and generally excessive vitriol — it is a wonder to me that your self-righteousness has allowed you the space to consider any issue whatsoever in a broader social context, so obsessively self-centered as you’ve demonstrated yourself to be. Aside from the intellectual dishonesty, it all just makes any underlying argument very unpleasant to read.

Which brings up a more substantive point: you are vocally and combatively arguing to a conclusion rather than establishing a foundation of facts or evidence which would build our broader understanding and eventually lend support to a line of thought. If I were playing by your rules, I’d call you the Donald Trump of “science” and be done with it; bullying and bullish, unheeding and immune to divergent thought, with only fractious personal attacks and shaky reasoning to support a cult of personal certainty. The trouble with trying to address anyone under these terms is that it’s utterly futile. By involving oneself in the argument as argument, the rhetorical ground is implicitly conceded. It’s not a conversation to broaden thinking and increase the depth and soundness of our reasoning; it’s an exercise in ego, and futility.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.