Hmmm. "Using skepticism as an excuse not to believe women's stories." I'm afraid skepticism does require not believing anecdotes on the grounds of the speaker's identity. This is very basic skepticism. It really shouldn't be set aside in the service of a political position.https://twitter.com/tmamone/status/980766964401541121 …
-
-
Then cherry-pick their ideas to your heart's content. "Cherry-picking" is often used as an accusation of inconsistency but, when done honestly & openly, it is just discernment.
Show this thread -
I will take Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations but decline his views on atheism. I'll have Peter Tatchell's attitude to universal human rights but leave his views on feminism. I'll go with Maryam Namazie's views on Islamism but go elsewhere for thinking statistically.
Show this thread -
I'm not kidding myself I'm achieving an unbiased view of the world with this tho. This whole process of selection and discernment is driven by my own values which change in the details but remain fairly consistent at the core. I think this is the best we can do as individuals tho
Show this thread -
Oh, and btw, you can only possibly consider secularism/atheism/skepticism/whatever to be dominated by white men if you completely ignore the existence of ex-Muslims which accusers, sadly, tend to be inclined to do.
Show this thread
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.