Re:Thomas Sowell interview
by AnimalMuppet on Monday August 03, 2020 @01:07PM
(#24040397)
Not just right-wing. I've seen the same approach from marxists. (Not an exaggeration or a projection - from literal marxists.) The unstated, unproven assumption is that Marx was right, and the analysis proceeds from there to make dogmatic statements about the economy and/or society. That's fine, if the readers are also convinced marxists. But if someone else reads it, they very quickly think "Wait a minute, I don't agree with your premise, and you did nothing to convince me. Why should I believe your conclusions?"
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Thomas Sowell interview
by TheOtherHobbes on Monday August 03, 2020 @01:54PM
(#24041021)
If you're familiar with Lakoff you'll know there's a difference in tone which is based on a difference on associated family positioning.
Conservatives tend to paternalism. Marxists are more likely to be oppositional, because Marxism and socialism are underdog discourses, and they don't have the advantage of assuming that general readers will agree - especially in the US, where the default position for most of the population is aggressive hostility towards Socialism and incandescent fury towards Marxism, without really knowing much about either.
Re:Thomas Sowell interview
by AnimalMuppet on Monday August 03, 2020 @02:06PM
(#24041181)
That may be true. But in response, they should write differently. If you're the underdog discourse, don't start the conversation by assuming that you're right. Worse, don't start it by assuming that the reader agrees that you're right.