Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia Granting there are bigots who hold that position, my perception of the mainstream discourse is of one side that thinks all biological males pose the same threat and should be excluded and another that thinks cis men should be excluded and trans women included. That is to say, — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia To clarify, if a trans exclusionary feminist says, "I believe all biological males pose an equal potential threat to me, whether they are cis males or trans women," is that okay or demonization in your view? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia So you're okay with exclusion of trans women and cis males from various spaces so long as no one is demonized as a unique threat? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia I'm against demonizing groups too, but I asked you what kinds of group based exclusions you're okay with, some or none, and which ones, not whether you favor demonizing a group. We agree demonization is bad. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia So is your position that all biological males should be presumed to represent the same threat in women's spaces or that cis men should be presumed to pose a threat while trans women should be presumed to pose a lesser threat than cis men? Or something different? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia I'm just trying to understand which kinds of group-based exclusions you're okay with, some or none. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia But are you okay with cis men being excluded from women's changing rooms or battered women's shelters even though most cis men would not commit any crimes if granted access to those spaces? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia But are you okay with cis men being excluded from women's changing rooms or battered women's shelters even though most cis men would not commit any crimes if granted access to those spaces or are you okay excluding all cis men as a safeguard against the few bad actors? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @IonaItalia Does that apply to cis men too? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@oldlife You are truly obsessed with my one Larry Arnn article. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

A story of the misery wrought by NIMBYs in Santa Cruz https://t.co/AIhPfHShQc — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@SonnyBunch If someone in a Trump mask robbed a bank today it would be like 3 straight weeks of Maddow content — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

Glad I got standing on the floor of a Blink concert out of the way when I was 16 and it cost $5 https://t.co/WOJK8otYOX — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

I'm also a bit baffled by the genre of *I, an editor who strongly dislike the interview, apologize to writers I published,* as if the publication of a problematic article retroactively pollutes everyone who has ever written for a given magazine. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

To an outsider, I can't even tell if the critics would agree with one another, if forced to cite the particular passages they would censor and why, or if people with different reasoning are presuming they all agree with one another. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

I've been reading up on the Hobart's controversy, pondering what views expressed in an interview ought to be seen as beyond the pale, & wondering what passages critics of that interview would censor and why, but I find that many of the attacks are too vague to clarify those lines — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@megpillow I've been following this with curiosity to try to understand where and how people draw lines. If you had to flag a particular passage in that interview as something that ought to be unpublishable, by your lights, what would be an example? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

The argument that a negotiated peace is the wisest course and that advocates of it are being unfairly demonized are both worth airing. Doing so through the lens of "wokeness," an imprecise term even in its most defensible uses, harms rather than helps clarity in this debate — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

If accurate, can this possibly be a wise use of scarce research dollars, given the potential downsides? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

RT @davidgura: Incredible. https://t.co/FKyf611uVC — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

Do sports matter? An interesting mix of people with contempt for sports and people who see great value in sports (with various positions in between, too). https://t.co/LRN6eDEzLI — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey I agree that verbal abuse by caregivers can cause tremendous harm, including physiological harm, to a child. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey Don't you think the situations you're describing have as much to do with the relationship children have with primary caregivers as with words? A parent can do tremendous damage to a kid over time with mere words; a stranger could say the same words with no effect at all. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey RE "very similarly to physical violence" I disagree. I don't deny rare, extreme physical reactions to words, but words don't in fact function similarly to bullets or knives. Your claim depends on comparing the most extreme words to the least extreme physical acts. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey Oh sorry you're right. I thought I was seeing the whole tweet but actually had to click to see the expanded version with the last part. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey The original post was about conflating words with violence, not whether or not words can cause harm. Sugar can cause physical harm. So can news articles about a suicide. Neither is therefore violence. The fact that something can cause harm does not make it violence. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

Huck Finn — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

RT @clairlemon: Recently finished @jon_rauch's remarkable book 'The Constitution of Knowledge,' which you should order & read immediately.… — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

We're so far beyond parody. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

RT @mattyglesias: Extremely stereotype-defying survey https://t.co/IZXeScbpM0 — PolitiTweet.org