Around these parts, there are a lot of arguments about the ancestral environment and its implications. Isn’t the argument that we are not cavemen engaging with those types of arguments?
If so, I’m not sure flamboyant strawman is the relevant reference class. Things actually argued by proponents are not strawmen.
But if your point is that 140 character tweets are not a good source of nuanced argument, I agree.
There is often a trade-off between wittiness and insight. Only the most amazing quotes contain both—and most Rationality Quotes are not at that level. We agree that the quote at issue falls far into the witty side of the scale.
Still, that does not mean that the quote (or most of the other things written by this author) are attacking a strawman.
Around these parts, there are a lot of arguments about the ancestral environment and its implications. Isn’t the argument that we are not cavemen engaging with those types of arguments?
If so, I’m not sure flamboyant strawman is the relevant reference class. Things actually argued by proponents are not strawmen.
But if your point is that 140 character tweets are not a good source of nuanced argument, I agree.
No. Many combinations of 140 characters are good. This one is bad*. So we disagree on two counts.
* Rather it is awesome as a witty rhetorical attack of the enemy and terrible as a Rationality Quote.
There is often a trade-off between wittiness and insight. Only the most amazing quotes contain both—and most Rationality Quotes are not at that level. We agree that the quote at issue falls far into the witty side of the scale.
Still, that does not mean that the quote (or most of the other things written by this author) are attacking a strawman.