True dat. It sounds like high school to me. So and so said this and that to so and so, and so and so got angry and now the sky is falling, because whatshisname isn’t talking to youknowwho anymore.
Thank the heavens for the Khan Academy, which is actually a productive use of YouTube.
How do you like “intellectual bandwagoning” as a term? I personally think it accurately describes what I perceive most of the time:
Someone has a broad position they generally support as a means to an end (say libertarianism in this case)
They notice arguments for a specific position that achieves their desired end, not because they actually logically understood the position, but because it seemed the original source did (tl;dr: he seems smart!)
They proceed to argue for this position based largely off of thoughtless regurgitation of the original arguments, sometimes adding their own thoughts onto these positions without actually understanding the position. This later gets them in trouble.
When someone presents a strong argument against the position, they buckle for one of (usually) three reasons:
a. The new arguments serve as an easier base from which to argue their desired ends via regurgitation.
b. Their lack of understanding for the position exposes them to humiliation, forcing them to concede and abandon it
c. Their unmerited additions to their misunderstood position are discredited, and they perceive this as discrediting of the original position