Daniel Bradley is 19-years-old, so be kind—or not.

He is a mediocre philosopher and a shitty comedian who enjoys writing in the third person like a fucking asshole. He also enjoys making overused jokes about how he's referring to himself in the third person in order to make himself seem more clever than he actually is.

In general, he attempts to avoid committing what he calls the 4 P's—pettiness, pretentiousness, pedantry, and prickishness. And I think he's just now failed in the pretentiousness domain.


Criticizing Critics of Structural-Functionalism

The criticism is actually so loosely defined, and universally applied, that one of my express purposes in writing this was to articulate as best I could the criticism itself. And because of the universality of its application, it's brought up in most relevant literature as almost an obligation. Its lack of clear definition required my very own to be sort of "idiosyncratic". I think Formal Theory in Sociology: Opportunity or Pitfall? is one of the best introductions to the subject; and it happens to be what I was implicitly, at the back of my mind, referring to as I wrote this. (It's a fun read.)

Criticizing Critics of Structural-Functionalism

Absolutely. I think this provides a decent summary: http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/n2f99.htm, though it is a bit heavy with reference to a certain practitioner of the "method", something I deliberately avoided. If you desire something more specific and in depth, I can send that info to you.