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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63 and
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...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
... 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 ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
... 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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @CathyYoung63 and
You didn't say to. You just did it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63 and
That's convenient. So are you saying it is ok for you to read between the lines of what I explicitly said?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @CathyYoung63 and
That doesn't make any sense. I am addressing what you did not asserting that you said you were going to do it. Please go away now if you won't have an honest discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
I can say that someone disregarded one thing and spoke about something else at length even if they don't say "I'm going to disregard this thing and talk about something else at length" Good grief.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63 and
I actually completely agree with that but I think that what you just found frustratingly obvious is exactly the same way I feel about your transparent efforts to self servingly frame this discussion in a manner that makes you the only honest participant.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think you're honest! I'm sure you genuinely think that what's important to discuss is a load of other people you associate with criticisms of SocJus scholarship and activism as context rather than what we did & why. I find this flawed for the reasons I gave & I want out.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63 and
In this particular thread yes because that's what I was discussing. If I was discussing the merits of your hoax and problems of certain fields that would be a different discussion. But I also want out. So let's leave it at that.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.