You see this in alternative medicine all the time. Take homeopathy, for example 2/
-
-
Show this thread
-
If you truly want to shine a light on homeopathy, you look not just at the provider opinions, you look at the FACTS 3/
Show this thread -
The facts about homeopathy are clear; it doesn't work. At all. Here's the conclusion from a massive study done in Australia 4/pic.twitter.com/FtpWqPDacx
Show this thread -
So if you want to "shine a light" on homeopathy, you don't just interview a homeopath. That'd be biased nonsense 5/
Show this thread -
If you want to shine a light on something, you want to reveal both the sunny side and the grimy underneath. The good AND the disgustingly, horrifyingly awful 6/
Show this thread -
So what does this has to do with Nazis? Aren't they all about ideology, not facts? 7/
Show this thread -
The answer is no. Nazis make any number of testable claims. The easiest example is Holocaust denial - the NYT interview completely glossed over these untrue claims 8/
Show this thread -
Nazis talk about race as if it is a scientifically defined thing. Which it absolutely isn't 9/
Show this thread -
If all you are doing is interviewing a Nazi, without challenging their demonstrably incorrect factual statements, all you are doing is giving them a platform to spread their nonsense 10/
Show this thread -
It's the same as covering homeopathy without acknowledging that there is no good evidence that it is effective for any condition at all 11/
Show this thread -
And if you interview a Nazi without even asking why they want to kill all Jews/LGBTI+ people/PoC etc, you're just giving them a platform 12/
Show this thread -
People aren't angry the NYT talked to a Nazi. They're mad that they signal-boosted Nazi beliefs with no thought for facts or objectivity 13/13
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.