BREAKING: Gabriel Malor takes to Twitter, calls Derbyshire’s views “indefensible”
Meaning, they can’t be defended. Meaning, the conclusions he draws from the studies, etc., he cites — that is, from the evidence he uses to build his case — can’t legitimately be drawn from the studies, etc., he cites. Meaning, one cannot use probabilities as a predictor of probability, particulary if the probability predicted isn’t a priori approved as “defensible”. Meaning, math itself is now “indefensible” if that math can reasonably be said to reach unwanted or — as it were — indefensible conclusions.
And yet, for all we’re now told just how “indefensible” is such an argument as the one Derbyshire actually made — which, as I’ve argued, is defensible precisely because the conclusions Derbyshire himself draws are, in fact, immaterial to the argument — many people have defended it.
But they are largely ignored on the right by a loud, repetitive chorus, most of whom, by dint of having ignored those who defended the article, can continue to claim the argument can’t be defended. And so mark those who have defended the article as among the vile extremists they’d prefer not to associate openly with their Big Tent Party.
I wrote earlier today about manufacturing consent in a post-Enlightenment society built on a linguistic foundation that promotes and institutionalizes anti-foundationalism.
And I’ll remind you now as I showed everyone in the episodes that had me banished from polite “conservative” society: it isn’t just the left who relies on these subterfuges.