@henryfarrell @HeerJeet @NathanielGivens to make a *very* conclusive argument, which I thought was in bad faith. (2/2)
-
-
Replying to @aujangabadi
@aujangabadi@HeerJeet@NathanielGivens Accusing someone of writing in “bad faith” is saying they are dishonest. Do you want to go there?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @henryfarrell
@aujangabadi@HeerJeet@NathanielGivens And what is the evidence that allows you to make this rather offensive accusation?5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @henryfarrell
@henryfarrell@HeerJeet@NathanielGivens That is using the data in a very one-sided and misleading manner.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aujangabadi
@aujangabadi@henryfarrell@NathanielGivens You keep assuming SF demographics exonerates charge of sexism rather than proves it.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@henryfarrell@NathanielGivens I assume SF demographics exonerate *Hugo distribution*, not SF sexism. You conflate the two.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aujangabadi
@aujangabadi@henryfarrell@NathanielGivens SF demographics problematic & so use of it to defend Hugo distribution dubious.4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@henryfarrell@NathanielGivens It's not a defense, it's just statistics. Like I keep saying, Hugo dist *should* equal, over (1/2)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aujangabadi
@aujangabadi@henryfarrell@NathanielGivens "just statistics" is excuse for ignoring history & sociology of field.5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@henryfarrell@NathanielGivens If women were 0% of SF and the Hugos only went to men, that wouldn't mean Hugos were sexist. (1/2)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@aujangabadi @henryfarrell @NathanielGivens I don't understand the mental gymnastics at work here. 1/2
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.