Meet Everything Studies, a blog about 'erisology' which is basically a soon-to-be-NEETed Swedish guy's aimless pontificating about how to make people less mean on the Internet.

Nobody cared until Sunday, when The Atlantic ran a piece on it, declaring "I’m on Team Erisology" and heralding the new field.

Problem is, some people already have PhDs in studying disagreement, and they aren't having it.

I WONDER IF THERE IS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE FOR STUDYING DISAGREEMENT 🤔🤔🤔 opines an Assistant Professor of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Studies, expressing her disagreement as best as she can within the 140-character confines of her digital medium.

Aristotle beams from heaven as a grad student destroys the article with ETHOS and PATHOS: it has "ignorance of rhetoric as a well-established academic discipline with tons of knowledge on how people use language to argue" and "buries humanistic ways of knowing", and rationalist discourse marginalizes people who don't use rationalist discourse.

Why the animus?

Well first off the Atlantic article decided that the best application of erisology was genetics and intelligence, which doesn't go over well.

But the writer, Jesse Singal, has a bit of a dirty past - see, he wrote transmisic propaganda in The Atlantic last year. What's Jesse Singal's fucking deal? asked Jezebel in June. So that really starts things off on the wrong foot in the eyes of someone who very recently published a peer-reviewed article about "Cultivating productive deliberation around public scientific controversy".

Milquetoast philosophy outlet DailyNous whiteknights for the beleaguered Swede, but it's not good enough. Because what's the real problem? Singal is a ratnerd and doesn't cite the big boys.