In the old Bulverism, you give the example, “You only think that because you are _____.”
That really clarifies and simplifies the concept.
Perhaps if you could add a similar pithy example of the new Bulverism (right up front), it would help.
An excellent point!
Where my problem lay is that the old assumes invalidity where the New may situationally assume validity or invalidity.
So the New Bulverism might give someone a pat on the back for believing something they “only think that because you are” even as it gives someone else the bird while asserting a philosophically similar cause.
This is ground I’ve mainly stumbled on before. I’m not a Jordan Peterson.