> Schaeffer told the Guardian that she “didn’t end up using anything” from “multiple interviews” with Polignano as she came to think that his answers were in part a performance. “He wanted to present himself as a complex character and I think he wanted to present his antisemitism as something that was emotionally earned, or that he had thought deeply about it,” she said.
As a scientist, I simply ignore data that don't fit my theory, and publish only data that does. Since I already know the truth, this makes sure that there is no bad data in the literature that could be used to spread lies.
Especially if that theory is "Prominent co-founders of anti-semitic publishing houses haven't given anti-semitism much thought."
Well, there is a difference between not publishing what some interviewee tells you because you fear it would harm your own political goals, and not publishing what some interviewee tells you because you think they are trying to feed you some bullshit to further their own political goals.
More eyebrow raising that she seemingly nonetheless found it worthwhile to bang this guy. The article only mentions his account of their sexual relationship, but isn't it rather hard to imagine that the Guardian wouldn't have asked her about the truth of that matter, and, had she denied it, either print this denial or omit the claim altogether from the story? One wonders how her husband feels about partaking in a polyamorous relationship that embraces diversity to such an extent.
> you think they are trying to feed you some bullshit
She was asking his personal political opinions. Her only indication that it was bullshit is that he didn't say what she wanted to hear, or rather, print. Selective skepticism.
The "leaked data" doesn't seem much noteworthy either. Files previously published on the site, an interview with a journalist, a draft for a published anthology, and a few recordings of speeches. Anticlimactic.
8 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 48.9 ms ] threadAs a scientist, I simply ignore data that don't fit my theory, and publish only data that does. Since I already know the truth, this makes sure that there is no bad data in the literature that could be used to spread lies.
Especially if that theory is "Prominent co-founders of anti-semitic publishing houses haven't given anti-semitism much thought."
/s
More eyebrow raising that she seemingly nonetheless found it worthwhile to bang this guy. The article only mentions his account of their sexual relationship, but isn't it rather hard to imagine that the Guardian wouldn't have asked her about the truth of that matter, and, had she denied it, either print this denial or omit the claim altogether from the story? One wonders how her husband feels about partaking in a polyamorous relationship that embraces diversity to such an extent.
She was asking his personal political opinions. Her only indication that it was bullshit is that he didn't say what she wanted to hear, or rather, print. Selective skepticism.