Sneering my way through the comments.
Here’s Jonatan Pallesen, whose twitter bio is: “PhD in statistical genetics. I analyze and tweet about questions in science and economics.” HMM.
Another example of targeting in this case is me. I wrote a critique of Claudine Gay's research, which I think is quite strong. (https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1749546447811277119 and https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1740324971430154471)
Putting aside the validity of the critiques, why does this fellow feel the need to look into this research at this point in time? Could it be that he is… targeting Gay while she is in the limelight? Couldn’t be, only the evil media would do such a thing.
And for this I was attacked by the Guardian for things completely unrelated, such as my views on immigration, and previous coauthors.
So I went ahead and searched the dude’s name and “guardian”. Here’s what showed up.
If I were to guess why he was “attacked” (really just reported on accurately), it would be that he was name checked by one of the main parties involved in Gay’s resignation, and the guardian was doing its due diligence and investigating every aspect of the story. That’s way less assuming than Jon’s explanation of being targeted.
It can obviously have a chilling effect if you write a critique of a scientific paper, you risk being called racist by a major newspaper.
Better ways to say what really happened:
- A racist dude sung my praises, the guardian suspected I am racist by association, investigated, and found out that I am indeed racist.
- If you say and do racist shit like race science, people will call you racist, because you are racist