Yes, they wrote at length about their motivations, and I don't think they were claiming to do a scientific study. They did a sting operation - like young-looking undercover cops trying to prove an establishment sells alcohol to underage customers.
-
-
Sure and they had success but people should recognise the event for what it is- advocacy. To say it is non-political and non-ideological is naïve. Boghossian might say he is just pro-science/critical thinking but his actions suggest otherwise or at least broader motives.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @ArthurCDent and
If anyone says that, it shows they haven't read the Areo write-up where we say very clearly that we're advocating not only for evidence-based epistemology but also consistently liberal ethics. We've said it pretty much everywhere else too. We've been writing about this for years.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
You don’t think I could have read the Areo piece and arrived from a different view than what you explicitly tell me to think? Wow I guess I’m reading articles wrong. I usually don’t accept on faith the authors framing. I would refer you to the article by
@Musa_alGharbi for...2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
... a more in depth examination of the pros and cons and surrounding context of your efforts. I don’t deny you the right to explain your motivation but that doesn’t mean I have to uncritically swallow it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @ArthurCDent and
Ah! You've moved on from disagreeing with people who say we don't have an agenda to disagreeing with us about what we say ours is? Well, I can't do much about that. It never helps to argue with mindreaders. We are the only authority on our own motivations.
3 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
That is exactly what is happening. Your agenda is in doubt, but I don't have a clear answer as to what that other secret nefarious agenda is.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @C_Kavanagh and
It depends where the other person is coming from. Usually, its that we're secretly reactionary rightists but after the socialists came out in support of us and we condemned Hungary's shutting down of gender studies, we've been accused of being Marxists & libtards again.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
A sign of the times and/or a sign that you have attracted a disproportionate amount of ideological followers. Nuance should be seen as positive tho, I wish more people were willing to piss off their audience in favour of honesty.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
I get a lot of ideologues but I also get a lot of people who can find some common ground with me and are also willing to have conversations with other followers over the divide so I am hopeful. This is the battle I see myself as fighting on the left:https://areomagazine.com/2018/08/23/no-we-are-not-right-wing-we-are-liberal-lefties-and-we-are-many/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
And this more broadly:https://areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/ …
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
Will read later. Appreciate the effort to explain your position. I don’t agree with you entirely (from what I’ve read) but respect your willingness to discuss.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.