You'd imagine a journalist who has written books about empire and colonialism might be able to come up with a more punchy synonym for "anti anti-racism"
@NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse @AwfullyMolly If you mean that she promised Patreon rewards and didn't deliver them, I'll take your word for it. Unless you have some proof that she never intended to, that's not 'lying' by the normal definition.
When you say, 'Maybe she did lie about the ONS,' what is your evidence for that?
@NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse @AwfullyMolly The weakness of the evidence presented in the original tweets above indicates that she did not, in fact, lie about influencing the ONS.
Instead of saying, 'Oh, maybe she didn't lie about that, after all,' you chucked it all and said 'Never mind that! What about her Patreon?'
@limabean1981 Can I ask why you think that a bunch of ONS directors took the time to meet with her? If not them listening to her about the campaign she was running, then what do you imagine took place at the meeting?
@AwfullyMolly @NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse Where is that claim? Is 'someone else tweeted it and she didn't correct them' seriously the best we've got? Never mind convincingly showing it was a lie, we can't even show that she actually said it?
I am trying to be open-minded. But, like. Is this really it?
@AwfullyMolly @NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse Like... does the whole ONS thing seriously rest on some woolly corporate-speak saying that they already had a broad strategy of including more data sources? And this contradicts (sort of, a wee bit) her scurrilous claim to have single-handedly changed their policy?
@NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse @AwfullyMolly You know 'cherry-picking' isn't something I made up, right? It's an established term for when you focus on the evidence that supports your conclusions and discard the rest. It's what you do when you're deluding yourself, or trying to mislead people.
@NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse @AwfullyMolly Don't you hear yourself, though? That's the definition of cherry-picking.
You noticed that the facts were too ambiguous to support your conclusion, and instead of reconsidering your conclusion, you just... moved to new facts. Doesn't that strike you as a biased thought process?
@NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse @AwfullyMolly I followed this account because I was interested in hearing the other side of the story, but again, pivoting suddenly to the Patreon thing just makes it feel like we're starting from the conclusion that she's terrible and working backwards to whatever evidence we can find.
@NumbersMan3 @KiwiWhitehouse @AwfullyMolly I mean... sure? I don't know anything about that, but I'm willing to take your word for it. It is very much not what we're talking about here.
@garius ACTION: FB to walk into [REDACTED] and destroy the One Ring by hurling into the fires of Mount [REDACTED]
BsoD noted that one does not simply walk into [REDACTED]. Debate ensued. PT and MB joined meeting.
ACTION: GtG, AsoA, LG, GsoG, BsoD, SG, MB and PT to accompany FB on walk,
@Davidbr55025958@jessphillips Have you considered not being a huge racist, or do you just really enjoy guzzling down the talking points of crusty old billionaire goblins