[wing-_-nuts]

I am a layman, not a psychologist with sufficient education to prove or disprove her claims. When I judge someone's credibility, I take into account whether they've spread misinformation in the past. In this case, she has. Or at least she holds those beliefs and believes them strongly enough to speak openly about it on a public podcast.

Yes. I judge people on that. We all have the freedom of speech. We do not have freedom from the judgement of others.

[pjlegato]

That doesn't address the argument at all. You claimed that although her views on one topic seem reasonable, you believe they should be canceled, no longer promoted in society, buried.... because you strongly disapprove of her views on an unrelated topic.

Are you prepared to extend this practice universally? Are you aware that practically nobody can survive this sort of puritanical Maoist cancel culture? Look at what happened in China or Cambodia for recent examples of how that goes.

[wing-_-nuts]

I disapprove of her views because they were provably false, yet she still espouses them. Yes, I do extend this universally. I won't take advice on orbital mechanics from someone who thinks the earth is flat either.

If that's 'puritanical Maoist cancel culture' so be it. You told on yourself with that phrase. This isn't a good faith discussion, and I'm out.

[bongodongobob]

He said:

She may well have a point but after that I could only see her as an unhinged contrarian.

You're the one talking about cancelling, not him. We all have the freedom to listen to who we want.

[reaperman]

If someone shows they’re either stupid or dishonest I will deprioritize reading their books. I have infinite books to read before I die. I have to cull the list somehow.