Emil O W Kirkegaard

...that you are correct is that productive. I know you think you are right. So should anyone who follows you. Declaring yourself victorious and your opponents to have weak unconvincing arguments is not that difficult when you are the arbiter. The conversation might go smoother...

... with less editorialising about how you have dismissed my arguments. This isn't a Ben Shapiro youtube video. I would hope it is a discussion between two people who respect each other but disagree and are presenting their arguments. That's just a request, up to you if you heed.

On your points... Again, if you charitably interpret every single point in isolation I agree that you can easily find no fault. This is what I am charging you of doing. Where others see obvious malfeasance you see pure scholarly interest. I won't be ever able to demonstrate...

... to a level you would accept that you are displaying confirmation bias. You can always assert and provide select illustrations to demonstrate how your bias is simply an accurate model of reality. The problem is that your opponents claim the exact same thing. Their models...

... can be supported by selected examples too. So my only request would be for you to critically examine whether there is ANYTHING about this event that has failed to confirm your negative impressions of liberal academics & positive impressions about consv./heterdox academics...

... I suspect I already know your answer and, if that were me, it would create pause for thought. I think my model of the world is generally accurate but when an event confirms all of the worst stereotypes I hold about a group I dislike & all the best about a group I like: .

Alright, I'll try to be brief for the rest... 1. I never said someone should be fired for discussing eugenics. I do think people advocating it *tend* to have dubious motives but whatever. (PS: I didn't even say I agree with Carl being fired).