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.
-
-
And I'm getting really sick of having spent a year working on a problem I think really important to address and being told this doesn't matter. We really need to be talking about how one of us spoke in a friendly way to an ideological loon.
-
For someone who claims to care about being fairly represented you don't seem to mind when you misrepresent the arguments of others to make yourself look better. I don't recall making the case that 'it doesn't really matter' and all that matters is who Peter associates with.
-
I'm not claiming you think that but rather than the project, you just want to talk about Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux and the biases common to classical liberals and us being associated with them. This happens so much, I tend to think its deflection
-
How about the fact that in most of the above I am responding to specific questions you asked! For instance, you specifically ask me to lay out the biases of classical liberals. I have explicitly distinguished you, James, and Peter and said from the start that people should...
-
... consider the content of your critique and what you found. To make it even more explicit THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IDEOLOGICAL PANDERING = SCIENTIFIC MERIT in some fields. But acknowledging that does not mean it is deflecting to consider the biases/agenda of those ...
-
... involved. Which include you, PB, and James and potentially your mystery funder. I accept your reasons for not disclosing funding btw but it is not a non-issue. Now, where in that did I say ignore all your findings because PB talked to Molyneux?
-
You didn't say to. You just did it.
-
And this happens repeatedly. I raise the results of the project & people say "well we know some papers can be really bad but what about the time one of you talked to Rubin and Molyneux or when Peterson retweeted you and they're all connected to Sam Harris who spoke to Murray?
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
So you can't talk to people until you do a full background check on them and denounce everything they've ever said? Sounds like a ridiculous bar to meet. You can agree with someone you don't like about one thing without endorsing everything they've ever said or believe.
-
Another factor is you have to predict if in the future they will ever say or do anything that some people don't approve of. It's an impossible standard to meet. It's not rational.
-
It’s also a straw man. If that is the argument it can be rightly dismissed. The harder, more accurate argument is that you should expect people to do basic research on those they repeatedly appear with and avoid lending support to racist/misogynist/conspiracy theorists.
-
Chris, you won't let go of this. I will continue to read Hemingway, but a recent article told me I maybe shouldn't because of misogyny? No. “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” ~Ernest Hemingway
-
And you continue to present the most convenient version of the argument to knock down. I’m not saying don’t read Hemingway. I’m saying you should be held accountable for those you chose to lend legitimacy too. You can talk to fanatics without lending them legitimacy.
-
You say that while asserting that talking to them is lending them legitimacy, it seems to me you just want to control under who and what circumstances people can talk to other people. Do all women need your permission before they talk to someone or only those you disagree with?
-
lol. Amazing logical inferences... Let me try and clarify things for you: I am *not* saying never engage with extremists/ideologues. I am saying if you engage uncritically and in a way that serves to endorse/strengthen their extremist dogmas then you deserve to be criticised.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Some friends of mine through internet correspondence went on Molyneux's podcast. I showed them Molyneux's advocacy of white supremacism. They told me they didn't know about that; after that, they stopped going on his show. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1054598608576790528 …
@CathyYoung63@RealJeffHoliday -
But when another friend of mine was interviewed on Molyneux's show, I informed him of the white supremacism. He shrugged that off as unimportant, as if it wasn't more scandalous than the Larry King Show. https://twitter.com/legendre007/status/1056551393866076160 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
For me, when it comes to assessing the judgment of a former guest on the Molyneux podcast, there's a big difference between the first sort of reaction and the second. https://twitter.com/legendre007/status/1056551830149189632 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.