I don't know what you mean. I am saying it is OK to choose not to dialog with *certain people*, mostly because it increases the chances of productive dialog.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Sorry. It's admittedly a loaded question based on witnessing a previous interaction with your coauthor. My point is that if [the royal] you begins statements that are, in fact, literal examples of 1-4, it should be expected to receive one or all of them in return.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonbmetz @HPluckrose
While I agree it's not exactly fair to you (or James), by both signing it, you're basically suggesting it's ok when you do it but others should just get a clue. That's not really how conversations work. Or at least how they shouldn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonbmetz
What do you mean? We absolutely defend anyone's right to decline to engage with us for any reason they choose. You'll not find us claiming they're not true defenders of free speech if they're not interested in topic or dislike our tone or think someone else makes the case better.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I mean it shouldn't be surprising when one receive these types of responses in the first place if [the royal] you makes the same kind of statements.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonbmetz @HPluckrose
Let's unpack it a bit further. What is the goal of the article? Is it an effort to foster better conversations, or simply making a car to justify how you ignore specific responses? The latter seems a bit superfluous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonbmetz
It's an argument for a better understanding of the freedom bit of freedom of speech and the marketplace of the marketplace of ideas. I don't think I can explain the thesis any better in tweets than I did in the essay.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @jonbmetz
If you don't find the argument compelling, I have failed to sell it to you in the marketplace of ideas and you remain free to reject it for any reason. I could not reasonably argue that you deny free speech coz you're not engaging with the argument. That is the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ok. Oddly the irony of you not making the thesis clear enough to me because I thought it was about something different proving your point in a way not withstanding.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonbmetz @HPluckrose
You could have used an addendum where the person might just not get what you're talking about in the first place (though I'm glad you didn't decide to ignore me and clarified it for me).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't know what you mean. We did say that ideas can be rejected for lack of clarity. That's in number four. I frequently decline to talk to people because I don't understand what they are talking about and go to someone else explaining more clearly.
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.