You can disagree that that's a good thing to do. He also tries to talk to antifa and the most extreme feminists, BTW. But whatever you think of his judgement in that doesn't say anything about the project or his/our motivation in this.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
Did he repeatedly appear with extreme feminists/antifa advocates to bash the excesses of the far right? If so I would genuinely like to see that. I disagree it’s irrelevant. It speaks to his judgment and what he considers important. It doesn’t automatically impugn you or the ...
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
... project overall. But it is relevant when assessing his involvement. What you call bad judgment, I call pandering. He didn’t go on to challenge Stefan on his lack of critical thinking/abuse of research on race. He went on to bash feminism.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
OK. I'll leave you to talk about character, motivation and association of authors rather than their ideas but I am disappointed. We do bash feminism tho. Yes. That's an actual stated position to engage with that doesn't require mindreading or guilt by association.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
I've been following this conversation -- don't have time to really participate right now, but I will say that while I don't doubt your motives certain associations are a real problem.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @HPluckrose and
If you bash feminism on Molyneux's podcast, you're basically giving reinforcement to someone known for saying extreme misogynist stuff. (*Really* misogynist, not in the "SJW" sense.)
4 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @C_Kavanagh and
OK, you can consider it bad judgement to do that. I don't know Molyneux but see occasional deranged tweets. But we shouldn't judge someone on them having talked to someone mad & horrible. Peter is the furthest thing from a misogynist or misogyny enabler that I can imagine.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @CathyYoung63 and
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
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
You've just said "We need to look more broadly at context" and then that was all you did. Perhaps in another conversation, I could succeed in bringing you back to the project & significance of it but that didn't happen today. All about people who had zero to do with the project.
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.