11–20 of 368 posts
Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738
Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738
Wanted to post exactly this. WSJ doing some terrific propaganda here.
Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738
Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary: # Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it. # Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant. # 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists. # Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.
The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is?
Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.
Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738
More troubling is his claim that they are "weaponizing" reproducibility against climate change. Doesn't that raise a red flag? If you're worried that reproducibility poses a problem for something, doesn't that mean you might just a little bit probably have beliefs not based on reproducible science, but on faith? And that the irreproducible science has a chance of being wrong?
I'm not trying to deny climate science, I think it's real. But it seems like there's a real problem with this person's stance and how they're trying to argue and obstruct.
I'm kind of a believer that people can think for themselves. Let anybody attend anything - if it's a science convention that isn't promoting science it seems like it's not going to get very far, no protesting required.
Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them?
Where has this been since 2015?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary: # Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it. # Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant. # 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists. # Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.
The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments. The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is? Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.
Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738
Agree or disagree with the event's motivations, trying to get it shut down is an outright attack. Defending against that publicly, like this article seems so do, is warranted and not an attack on Mr. Teytelman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments. The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is? Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.
Do you want your children to live in a world with +4 degrees because some purely financially motivated people stopped progress on the environmental protection front?
The results are less effective social and economic policy, and poorer research in general, as incentives are no longer aligned with classical goals of objective knowledge discovery.
Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738
Even after reading his tweets I have a distaste for what he is doing. He doesn't want this conference going forward because they are of different political leaning or are saying things he doesn't agree with. What business is that of his? If these people want to meet, they can meet without his stamp of approval.
That is NOT what his Tweets say. He is warning that the conference is not what it says it is but nowhere does he argue for canceling the conference.
I've been warning people not to attend it.