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.
-
-
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
Are you a liberal lefty? You sound like a liberal lefty. If so, this is all aimed primarily at you.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
Unsure afte previous confusion if this is aimed at me. If it is, I’d say I’m a centre left person. Certainly not far left.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
Chris--pro-science, tho, means you cannot scientifically determine motives/agendas/biases of the researchers. Just focus on the research. Let it stand. Is it true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @HPluckrose and
That isn’t what being pro-science means. Of course you address the content of research but you don’t have to blind yourself to the agenda of the researchers. Also, as Helen and others acknowledge the hoax wasn’t science it was activism.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
That doesn't work. We wanted to show something and I think we did. It wasn't a controlled study. But it does show the problems we intended to show. Look at the hundreds of sources we cited in order to be able make the claims we did & at how we were directed in review.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
We are showing what is there. That is in the service of advocating for evidence-based epistemology and consistently liberal ethics but it will only convince people who already value those and needed convincing that these fields lacked them.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
People in the fields are defending our papers and saying they are sound because they really do work on those premises we are critical of. Our project didn't show that that's a problem. It just showed it to be the case. We have to argue that its a problem.
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.