The charity in question has nothing to do with eugenics. It's about preventing the suffering of children being born to drug addicts who then lose them to the foster care system. But you're deflecting since the specific accusation in the tweet wasn't about eugenics.
-
-
Replying to @FakeMeows @ArsonAtDennys and
I like how the OP in this screenshot mentions this charity for like two lines, goes on this long unhinged Nazi rant, and Scott's only comment is "That charity sounds good!", and you think this is normal and acceptable
3 replies 3 retweets 45 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
We're talking about eugenics because the OP *described the charity as practicing eugenics*, and then goes on this huge rant about all the incredibly invasive eugenics they'd practice if they were in charge (making sure people are the exact right amount of autistic etc)
1 reply 4 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
The simple fact that this is the kind of conversation people had on Scott's LJ all the time and he apparently found it pleasant and stimulating is damning all by itself, even without the parts where he actually chimes in "Hey that particular eugenics sounds good, I'm on board"
1 reply 4 retweets 35 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ArsonAtDennys and
The OP was this, and all I'm seeing is people throwing as much shit against the wall to see what sticks, but it's falling far short.pic.twitter.com/0bNkuqKDY1
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FakeMeows @ArsonAtDennys and
Yeah I know You find nothing at all obviously offensive about the screenshotted LJ comment, you probably think that kind of comment is insightful and interesting and wish you could see more of it in mainstream media Fuck you
2 replies 2 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
Scott has scrubbed this at this point I think but a lot of this dustup started way back in 2014 when
@chrysopoetics got in a back-and-forth convo straight up saying "Can you ban the eugenics talk on here, I find it harmful" and Scott refusing and then getting mad3 replies 2 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
I don't even care at this point what Scott personally thinks The fact that he intentionally provides a "safe space" for people to have lengthy conversations on topics that *should not be safe* is enough reason to condemn him "Ban eugenics? That's banning free speech!"
2 replies 4 retweets 43 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ArsonAtDennys and
The mask drops. Thanks for showing what this is really about.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @ArsonAtDennys and
There was never any "mask", that's literally what this quote is aboutpic.twitter.com/1viRDlKBkK
1 reply 2 retweets 35 likes
Scott's whole definition of "epistemic virtue" was "I will NOT ban Nazis, I will instead ban the people who demand I ban Nazis"
And you clearly share it
Fine, but you can't therefore call @ElSandifer's accusation somehow dishonest or false
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
And refusing to ban Nazi's is a reaallyyy great way to make sure your place becomes over-run with such folk, too. Like, you can literally watch this play out on the internet time and time and time again.
1 reply 2 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @Felgraf_Physics @FakeMeows and
Scott even *acknowledged this* when the air around him got too odiferous with overt Nazi stink for him to breathe comfortably But in a way that still made him out to somehow be the victim of the SJWs putting him in this position https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ …
2 replies 3 retweets 30 likes - Show replies
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.