The essay begins with a thought-terminating cliche in the third paragraph:
>This is someone who repeatedly speaks admiringly of Charles Murray, puts Nick Land, Razib Khan, and various other fashy types on his blogroll, and openly advocates eugenics.
>The claim that he’s troublingly invested in racist bullshit is straightforward and, frankly, uninteresting; anyone trying to dispute it has a disingenuous agenda most likely involving racist bullshit.
Ironically enough, the essay throws an accusation of "tedious Gish gallop working its way through a host of minor claims" into the mix, also in the same third out of 100-odd paragraphs. Thank you for providing a morning chuckle.
You might want to try reading the article more carefully. The author is giving his quick explanation of why they aren't going to discuss the race stuff. Of course it's a "thought-terminating cliche", the author is explicitly terminating that particular discussion quickly to move onto the topic that they want to discuss. The focus of the essay is to thoroughly explore Scott's rhetoric and views on feminism.
>This is someone who repeatedly speaks admiringly of Charles Murray, puts Nick Land, Razib Khan, and various other fashy types on his blogroll, and openly advocates eugenics.
>The claim that he’s troublingly invested in racist bullshit is straightforward and, frankly, uninteresting; anyone trying to dispute it has a disingenuous agenda most likely involving racist bullshit.
Ironically enough, the essay throws an accusation of "tedious Gish gallop working its way through a host of minor claims" into the mix, also in the same third out of 100-odd paragraphs. Thank you for providing a morning chuckle.