This tone is very common in academic philosophy. I would characterize it as being low in rhetoric and extremely blunt. I don't really see how it sounds like "a high school sophomore".
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.
I admit to some bias, but Huemer has some good academic papers (which you can find here: https://www.owl232.net/papers.htm).
Why would the opinion of a VC who dropped out of an undergrad philosophy program be an especially authoritative or notable on this topic? Some tech people have an annoying habit of shitting on anything that isn't tech or tech-adjacent, and if anything, that essay seems to play into those biases.
My bad! I think I had hit reply to the wrong comment. I could have sworn there was something written about tone, but it must have been someone else. Sorry about that.
Political debates would be much more interesting if they weren't allowed to do this. It would be a bit like the rule that one should never discuss the speaker, only the content. It would really help against polarization.
Of course, when people are pulling and advocating for one direction, doing the opposite seems like an contradiction. Thus the political debates becomes about trust and sincerity. No longer is the discussion about the effectiveness of the strategy but rather about how trustworthy the strategy is.
One very common way polls measure political strategies is thus in voter trust. Do voters trust that party X has a good strategy to solve problem Y. It generally only experts and researchers that attempt to measure the actually effectiveness of a political strategy.