The only correct response to anything related to JP.https://twitter.com/some_qualia/status/1000394866692689921 …
You're wrongly assuming absence of disingenuous behavior. The vast majority who show up to argue don't want any intellectual exchange. They want the legitimacy of intellectual people arguing with them.
-
-
It's a small problem that idiots like JP exist. It's a big problem that they achieve an international platform in the media as a topic with two legitimate sides.
-
When you let a hateful idiot debate in a forum that grants legitimacy, they end up President.
-
Yeah, no. Trump won because everyone else was *totally unprepared* for the kind of attack on truth and reality that his campaign did. There was basically NO DEFENCE. That's not the same mechanism here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I understand this, but 1. I don't think that's JP's goal, he believes he's already legitimate; 2. There are a lot of non-Nazis who get genuinely convinced by his arguments, get suspicious of the left, and are primed for right-wing radicalization. Isn't it a *big* problem?
-
Yes, and you solve it by no-platforming him. Not by expanding his platform.
-
He's mainstream enough that there's always someone who will give him a platform. (I've watched some of his talks - it helps me sharpen my critical mind. There's no hate speech, only fallacies, wrong inferences and conclusions. Justifying no-platforming isn't immediately obvious.)
-
As news media, giving a conman peddling fallacies coverage when there are thousands of more-qualified ppl on whatever topic you want to cover is utterly irresponsible.
-
The only justification you need not to give platform is lack of expertise.
-
They don't give me media appearances to talk about heart surgery.
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.