Misguided, I think, but his aims were noble.
-
-
Replying to @alexjpatch @MarkHoofnagle and
But to demand that The New Yorker not engage with Bannon or the alt-right is to __demand__ that The New Yorker limit and narrow its' own expression.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexjpatch @MarkHoofnagle and
As an institution, the New Yorker made an effort to promote the exchange and scrutiny diverse ideas. They tried to create a platform, in person and in print, where "free speech" could take place. They didn't have to do so, but it is admirable.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So what’s next? Flat earth? Holocaust denial? Not having standards is gross. It also denies the reality that the highest goal of these defunct, shitty, racist ideologues is to enjoy a public forum to confer legitimacy when all they should enjoy is ridicule.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm personally on the fence as to whether Bannon's ilk, even in the context of a scrutenous interview, should be circumscribed by that 'editorial line.' But for the sake of debate, his ideas are held by a significant minority of Americans.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So are racism, sexism, etc., doesn’t mean they’re good topics for meaningful exploration. They’re gross.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Debating David Duke is unlikely to convert any Klan members. But what about the millions of Americans who seem to believe that immigration and trade are costing US workers their jobs? Write them off as racists? "Deplorables?" See where I'm going with this?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Debating David Duke is the biggest win he could ever score - being admitted to the Overton window for reasonable discussion, see where I’m going with this? Creationists, antivaxxers, holocaust deniers are all desperate for debate with actual academics. They crave legitimacy.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @alexjpatch and
Valuable discussion also is predicated on honesty of the participants. People who are interested in debate as theater, to score, to emotionally manipulate, gain footing, to lever their shitty ideas by proximity to good ones, or just plain lie, they’re not worth the time.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @alexjpatch and
Worse, they win by the engagement, they win by legitimacy being conferred by standing next to people who don’t lie, who don’t cheat, who work hard and show their work. If you’ve ever seen a “Gish Gallop” you see logic and data isn’t always the winner, it’s the better manipulator.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yep. They also use what I like to call the "all truth comes from public debate" fallacy.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/ …
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.