Where do you see the appropriate boundary? Not being on stage with NC at all? Or being cold/distant/refusing a picture backstage? Did the audience members violate the moral boundary, or just the fellow presenters? Did the person who took the picture?
If something is verifiable (your word), then there is "proof" (my word from above) which means there IS guilt and that is not what I was discussing in the article. My discussion in the article is about what to do when you don't have proof of any direct involvement. Am I misunderstanding your complaint?
I agree that "evident abuse" is necessary before condemning someone or something. I never make the argument that I know 100% NXIVM did not have abuse. I have not seen evidence of it yet, but that's why I put my tweet in there explaining my ignorance. But I would disagree that being branded is automatically abuse - as Nicki pointed out some women may have freely chosen to do that.
Is there proof that Nicki herself abused people? My argument is that Nicki has been associated with NXIVM which may very well be guilty in some respect. But that doesn't mean Nicki knew or was guilty of it herself. And to pass that guilt on to James Lindsay and whoever else is just shady.
Thank you for clearly explaining your perspective here. I really appreciate it. Personally, unless one of the "victims" said they were forced to get branded, I wouldn't consider it abuse just because it was branding versus a tattoo. But I do understand what you're saying. I just don't think something is abuse unless the person is an un-willing participant. And in the case of NXIVM I just do not know right now. My thoughts would definitely change if I found out they were unwilling.
My posting of Nicki's twitter thread is not to *persuade* anyone. It's simply giving people the opportunity to hear another side of the story. People used to be able to listen to multiple sides before making up their minds. If after hearing both sides of the story anyone still thinks she did something shady, then fine. At least they have a more informed opinion.
What do you think was done here that was "troubling?"
I have no problem with any of this article. We don’t need press gatekeepers; we can be our own gatekeepers. What we need is no censorship but rather free competition of ideas. Sure, free-speech antagonists can point to downsides to that (like the Nazis marching in Skokie) but that’s disingenuous because it has the fewest downsides. Of all the alternatives, free speech is the least worst. 
Where do you see the appropriate boundary? Not being on stage with NC at all? Or being cold/distant/refusing a picture backstage? Did the audience members violate the moral boundary, or just the fellow presenters? Did the person who took the picture?
If something is verifiable (your word), then there is "proof" (my word from above) which means there IS guilt and that is not what I was discussing in the article. My discussion in the article is about what to do when you don't have proof of any direct involvement. Am I misunderstanding your complaint?
I agree that "evident abuse" is necessary before condemning someone or something. I never make the argument that I know 100% NXIVM did not have abuse. I have not seen evidence of it yet, but that's why I put my tweet in there explaining my ignorance. But I would disagree that being branded is automatically abuse - as Nicki pointed out some women may have freely chosen to do that.
Is there proof that Nicki herself abused people? My argument is that Nicki has been associated with NXIVM which may very well be guilty in some respect. But that doesn't mean Nicki knew or was guilty of it herself. And to pass that guilt on to James Lindsay and whoever else is just shady.
Thank you for clearly explaining your perspective here. I really appreciate it. Personally, unless one of the "victims" said they were forced to get branded, I wouldn't consider it abuse just because it was branding versus a tattoo. But I do understand what you're saying. I just don't think something is abuse unless the person is an un-willing participant. And in the case of NXIVM I just do not know right now. My thoughts would definitely change if I found out they were unwilling.
My posting of Nicki's twitter thread is not to *persuade* anyone. It's simply giving people the opportunity to hear another side of the story. People used to be able to listen to multiple sides before making up their minds. If after hearing both sides of the story anyone still thinks she did something shady, then fine. At least they have a more informed opinion.
What do you think was done here that was "troubling?"
Presstitute: Perfect Moniker for much of our Press, today!
I wish this was two posts, there's so much to unpack.
I have no problem with any of this article. We don’t need press gatekeepers; we can be our own gatekeepers. What we need is no censorship but rather free competition of ideas. Sure, free-speech antagonists can point to downsides to that (like the Nazis marching in Skokie) but that’s disingenuous because it has the fewest downsides. Of all the alternatives, free speech is the least worst.