If I explain that thing X belongs to category Y because of cultural consensus and you’re rebutting it because “Well I don’t think it means this” then any discussion we’re going to have is ultimately unproductive.

Whether you agree with the classification I laid out is irrelevant. The overall point made is that the alt-lite — terminology qualms notwithstanding — engage in all manners of illiberal discourse by peddling eugenics, race realist social theory, evolutionary psychology, and other rehashed versions of 18th century era scientific ambiguities to push forth their views. Jordan Peterson talks about forced monogamy, Sam Harris talks about barring black people opportunities because of some garbage Andrew Sullivan wrote, Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro are masters at mobilizing their audience to dogpile people on the left with differing opinions — where the fuck do you get the notion they’re liberal or in any way inclined to preserve freedom? You’d have to be *extremely* ambivalent not to recognize that those who engage in illiberal behavior, are indeed illiberal.

Not calling a spade a spade is exactly the type of “bad faith” argument I’m referring to. If you’re not going to do the research, or even acquaint yourself with the literature discussed, then why the hell are you fishing for an argument? I tend to be generous with “Well, actually” comments, but this is absurd.