,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I have read the whole thread and the article. Pretty clear your intent in both is to belittle and call into question MPs’ claims of harassment. A position you show little interest in revisiting in light of criticism.
Instead, there is the usual repeated attack on all critics as bad faith readers. As if Dr Jones doesn’t know what scare quotes are used for and it his critics who are being intolerant for reading his statements in the manner they are plainly intended.
Then there is the classic Spiked style “harassment is bad but so are efforts to stigmatise legitimate criticism as harassment” formulation. Which Dr Jones keeps invoking without providing any concrete examples.
Clearly this argument only works if there is some significant category of incidents/behaviours which MPs, the media etc frame as harassment but which Dr Jones believes are in fact legitimate speech. What are they? We don’t know as he doesn’t define them or give examples.
Which is why his arg looks off: It amounts to “yes of course it’s bad that MPs have to install panic rooms and walk their children to school with a police escort but it is also bad that unspecified people face unspecified costs from having their legit concerns called harassment”
Unless he can specify costs falling on critics of politicians that are remotely equivalent to living under police guard and facing a constant torrent of violent threats, then this argument by its own logic cheapens those threats by equating them to something less serious.
