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.
-
-
I think there is a fairly strong disagreement here about what conversation implies, which - as I've said to you before Chris - is something that seems completely undefined at a social level, and most people don't agree about.
-
I feel like the entire conversation above was just a messy proxy for that disagreement
-
It was also a lot to do with mindreading and guilt by association.
-
"guilt by association" is what I'm referring to, though Chris might not like that as a summary. People have different ideas about "internet adjacency" and what it implies. Which shouldn't be surprising, things are moving quickly
-
Ah, I see!
-
I think there are a number of counter intuitive little axioms at work that account for the various political sub divisions we see. Theism, Blank slatism, disagreement about free speech definition, clear implications of having a conversation, what the state is philosophically etc
-
It seems to me that people spend 90% of their time arguing about derivatives of these deeper disagreements, which is quite futile
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.