I wonder whether at his next conference on the evolution of language Pinker will give a platform to a few young earth creationists or flat earthers? Obviously not. As giving a platform to bad ideas gives them legitimacy. Same logic should apply to Nazis
-
-
-
@RichardDawkins and@danieldennett have made the above point about creationism in the past...maybe they can talk some sense to their friends in the intellectual racist web? Unless they agree with their views of course... -
Populist-nationalists are bad, but they aren't Nazis. IDW is too conservative, but it isn't racist. Stop being so politically binary.
-
As far as I can see they spend all of their time worrying about the welfare of Tommy Robinson, Roseanne Barr, Steve Bannon, and Alex Jones... and none of their time worrying about the victims of violence from white supremicists...
-
That choice of emphasis is annoying esp in Dave Rubin's case. But why do they do it? That emphasis could be coming from implicit racism OR coming from a zealous commitment to liberal principles ie defending free speech for Nazis.
-
Don’t know why this is characterized as a free speech issue. Bannon hasn’t been denied free speech. Some people chose not to platform his ridiculous views. Just like Pinker chooses to not platform Ken Ham at conferences on the evolution of language.
-
I totally agree - but it's an explanation for the IDW preoccupation with the extremists rather than victims. They obsess over truth and debate. You can't just assume it's racism (and doing so absolutely fuels a right wing narrative.)
-
Right wing people have a legitimate right to their political beliefs as left wing people do. The IDW could promote the work of serious right wing academics. But no. The choose to relentlessly promote white nationalists.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@sapinker If your book is a refutation, how many times does B need to be refuted? His views are well known. He is also a wealthy individual with ample means to disseminate his ideas. Adherence to ‘Enlightenment values’ doesn’t mean that he should have free access to every forum. -
Couldn’t you use that argument to dissuade anyone from being interviewed? Should Dr. Pinker be excluded from an interview because he is wealthy and his views are well known?
-
If his views were detestable and dangerous... probably wouldn’t be normalized by any stage I controlled. Bannon is still free to spout his white nationalist baloney from his own platforms. He gains more from inclusion in the forum than he loses in the debate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Bannon was steadily fading from relevance. This event wouldn't have eviscerated him, it would’ve resuscitated him. Even having invited him and cancelled did this to a degree, but having him on stage would’ve been worse.
-
So how do you think he’s doing now after the disinvitation then...?
-
Slightly better than if he hadn’t been invited in the first place, but much worse, in terms of public profile and attention, than he’d be doing after an on-video confrontation with a prominent liberal in the heart of liberaldom.
-
So you aren’t convinced that him being exposed by Remnick would be bad for him reputationally? Why not?
-
He’s savvy enough that he already has evasive answers for any trap Remnick could spring. On top of that he’d have an opportunity to stick it to the libs in the eyes of everyone who’s already on his side. On top of that, who out there is still swayable about Bannon anyway?
-
There are plenty of people who are on the right but not necessarily acolytes of Bannon. Exposing the corruption of his ideas might sway them away. Are you saying he is too clever for Remnick, or that his ideas are somehow immune to liberal scrutiny?
-
He’s too clever to be cornered in a way that would hurt him with anyone who’d consider taking his ideas seriously, and his ideas have already been thoroughly scrutinized by the left anyway. Remnick and Pinker think they’d get a debate. It’d be more like professional wrestling.
-
But his reputation is secondary to the ideas. Like, whether his rep takes a hit or not, it’s good to see his ideas get exposed by an informed interlocutor, no?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Verbal evisceration is a fantasy.
-
Steven Crowder's 'Change My Mind' for example. Does anyone really think he is willing to change his mind on anything? No. Utterly fucking pointless. P.S. Steven Crowder is an absolute wanker.
- 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.