This is not the question. Public figures remain free to decline to engage with any one of their fans or their critics tho they might get criticism if they never engage with any of them. Stalking does not become OK if they decline to do this. https://twitter.com/gregblives/status/971136459674501120 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I always thought Phil was a decent guy who I just disagreed with on stuff. So strange then to see him resort to secondary accounts to avoid blocks and thinking it’s ok to use someone’s children in order to “trigger” them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OnYouLikeGlue
I think he's a decent guy who has a mental illness and it is manifesting in the form of ideologically-zealous obsessive stalking. I very much doubt he can see his behaviour for what it is. It needs to be stopped tho.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @OnYouLikeGlue
So, it's a problem when he releases information without consent about other people (when he sees it to be relevant), but it's not a problem when you release information about his mental illness without his consent? What's the relevant disanalogy here?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gergblives @OnYouLikeGlue
Huh? I don't have any information about his mental illness. I don't know if he's even been diagnosed with one. If he isn't concerned about his own behaviour, he won't have sought help for it. I want him to do that. It's more charitable than assuming malice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @OnYouLikeGlue
It could be charitable. But yet again, claiming individuals are mentally ill is a time-tested rhetorical device to inoculate people from considering whether there are merits to a person's ideas. It can be, in cases, ad hominem. C.f., the NRA and the Parkland shooting.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gergblives @OnYouLikeGlue
Of course. But if you think there is merit to this behaviour when it's not caused by mental illness, I don't know what to tell you. To me, it's clear it's wrong and the two explanations are deliberate malice or mental illness.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think it’s possible he really hasn’t had time to examine his actions objectively. Maybe I’m being either too naive or too charitable.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OnYouLikeGlue
It's been since the conceptual penis last may. It's just escalating.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I get that. I actually liked his criticism vs your defense (in helping sort my thoughts about it) and I concede that his apparent obsessiveness isnt a good sign.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This is the thing. People can take any position at all on the hoax. This isn't the problem. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I wouldn't hound people who don't. This is not right.
-
-
Thanks. 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.