"Parler...is dedicated to the promulgation of #FreeSpeech: 'The best thing is for everyone to engage with a bad idea & shut it down through public discourse.'"
We should demand that evidence be included each time someone says "the BEST thing is...". 1/
"Right now, Parler is hosting a very one-sided conversation. It is almost entirely made up of Republican leaders, officials, thinkers and publications." 2/
“There are going to be no fact checkers. You're not going to be told what to think and what to say. A police officer isn't going to arrest you if you say the wrong opinion,” says John Matze, 27. “I think that's all people want. That's what they like.” 3/
"He found himself leaning a lot toward the conservative economist Thomas Sowell ('very logical'), and he also digs the classic libertarian lodestar Ayn Rand ('very interesting'). Matze describes himself as an arguer." 4/
"When asked if there ever might be an instance when the N-word would be appropriate, Matze has this answer: 'It depends on the context. If they just said that word alone, I don't think we would touch it.' He thinks a couple minutes longer, then restates his opinion." 5/
On second try: “If somebody came on there and said the N-word to somebody, and they got very upset as a result of that, then it would get taken down.” 6/
I laughed. Malinda Smith argues with Jon Kay, points out several times how ill-informed he is on the issue and how disappointing his attempts at argument.
It has some of his favourite tropes, the ones that make him feel good when he’s been beaten at the game he was trying to play.
He’s got some back channel into your institution going! 2/
You are partly being paid by public money, you must be incapable to make it in the rough and tumble market where he, #Quillette editor, claims to do so well! 3/
What’s the egregious part? What do you find so embarrassing? What source are you considering? Why “useless”? What’s true and untrue academic freedom? Where’s there something authoritarian?
You know what I see? I see a veiled attempt to dismiss the academic freedom of two particular scholars, with no evidence or argumentative merit being brought to challenge their research. Curious. Curious.
If you want to hear the talk that brought about the above tweet, if you want to have your own thoughts on it, it’s here:
A "sudden increase in expenses when you are living well below the poverty line creates an urgent crisis. And yet it would seem no one has responded as if disabled people are even part of this public health crisis, let alone uniquely at risk from it."
"Some have characterized the current situation as disabled people having been forgotten in the response to COVID. I disagree. Disabled people have been excluded, not forgotten."
"The highest numbers of deaths have occurred among residents of long-term care and other congregate care facilities. Who lives in these facilities if not disabled people? Why then was the 'D' word never used?"
The poor fuzzy hamsters. Who would have known that holding up a rifle and handgun was somehow indicating to others that you want to harm them? (Huh, @wokal_distance? 😉) Nobody could have read their mind then. Now we know: one of their motives was not to ruin their own lives.
(Also, my writing brain must be fried. First I wrote "pure fuzzy hamsters," then "pour fuzzy hamsters," until finally and uncertainly settling on "poor fuzzy hamsters." LOL?)
From their recent lawsuit: "In the time since the trespassers' entrance onto Plaintiffs' private property, Plaintiffs have obtained significant national recognition and infamy, and as a result, have suffered damages." insider.com/mccloskeys-jou…