i deleted some because the language was unclear. kept most of them up. and you and @salonium_34 can't respond to any of the actual criticism
-
-
Plenty of folks, namely
@HPluckrose, dealt with that claim, but you were so in ur "LOL PWN SAM HARRIS" mindset you made a fool of yourself2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Liv4theBeat @DanielApplebaum and
none of you are addressing the points made by Torres or the points Lindsay himself couldn't defend on the SI podcast
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @21logician @DanielApplebaum and
Michael Hefner Retweeted
Here's my response. Can you at least admit you were wrong about it being a predatory journal? https://twitter.com/liv4thebeat/status/869893801338298368 …
Michael Hefner added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Liv4theBeat @DanielApplebaum and
predatory journal isn't some binary thing. but sure if we define it as willing to publish literally anything then it was wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @21logician @DanielApplebaum and
A 61% rejection rate isn't predatory, period. But I appreciate you at least acknowledging in part that you were wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Liv4theBeat
Untag me please, Michael. I've muted him. Just another one defensively refuting huge claims that aren't being made. Torres has lost it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Will do. Yes, strawman is we say the paper singlehandedly took down gender studies. My tiff was actually w/ claim that journal was predatory
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
It stems from an almost religious desire to defend Gender Studies. They fear it being taken down so think hoaxes against it claim to do that
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.