He starts with a "Webster's dictionary defines" kind of premise and most of the rest is rhetoric. Not one single "woke social justice warrior" values philosophy? That's not blunt, it's extremely lazy thinking expressed with name calling. I had no idea reading this that the author was nominally an intellectual and a philosopher.
>He starts with a "Webster's dictionary defines" kind of premise
We are talking about diversity in academia, so it's helpful to have some history of the word and how it started becoming used the way it's used today. Do you disagree with the history?
>Not one single "woke social justice warrior" values philosophy?
He didn't say this. He said that not one "woke social justice warrior" (this should have been expressed differently) values philosophical diversity within academia. That said, citing himself on this was a bit ridiculous.
>I had no idea reading this that the author was nominally an intellectual and a philosopher.
Yes, it's easy to dispute the history he's trying to establish here, because he's fixated on one particular legal aspect of it which happens to support his (much broader) argument.
