Read on Twitter
In this thread detailing the Sokal Squared folks appearance at a ‘Sovereign Nations’ conference Boghossian and Lindsay suggest ‘the answer is dialogue’. But where exactly is the dialogue or the people ‘whose speech you dislike’ at this meeting? This is preaching to the choir. https://twitter.com/PamelaParesky/status/1183465306796232706
I haven’t heard much about the ‘Sovereign Nations’ organisation but as soon as I saw the pamphlet, the speakers and the topic, I had an idea of the likely ideology they would be promoting and a quick visit to their websites confirmed my expectations.
The NFL protests are connected to George Soros, Western nations (like Sweden and Denmark) are at the point of collapse, immigrants are costing billions/committing crimes & btw Hitler was a leftwing progressive. Plenty of content that should make a rationalist 
.
.
But the Sokal Squared folks don’t touch on any of that. They aren’t there to have *those* difficult conversations. They are there as left wing guns for hire ready to plop down at any (conservative) conference & confirm how crazy and intolerant the left is now.
As for the right and the ascendency of its own rhetoric spewing, intolerant and conspiratorial ideologues? Pfft... everyone knows the problems there (though you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise if you were to skim the content Sovereign Nations promotes online).
It should be transparent why an organisation like ‘Sovereign Nations’ would create a conference focused entirely on bashing the excesses of the ‘Social Justice’ left but I’m sure the Sokal folks will say none of that matters. They go where they are invited.
But is that really a defence? I’d imagine their are limits. I doubt Peter and co. would be happy rocking up to some neo-Nazi meeting, even if invited under the banner of having ‘difficult conversations’, but if the ideology of organizers is irrelevant why should that matter?
The obvious answer is that most people, including (I hope) the Sokal Squared folk, do not want to be seen as propping up a hateful ideology by providing an implicit endorsement or legitimacy through their presence.
I know what the response will be to this. “This is just guilt by association”, “Engage with their ideas”, “They don’t endorse the views of the organisation hosting (and promoting) them”, etc.
So let me restate my own argument for people to ‘engage with’. The organization that set up this conference cheers the election of far right political parties in Europe, decries non-White immigration to Western countries and promotes historical revisionism & conspiracy theories.
The Sokal squared folks are secular rationalists who claim to be committed to having difficult conversations and promoting non-partisan engagement. Taking these claims at face value they should be concerned about lending support to an organisation like Sovereign Nations.
As such they could consider having some of those patented ‘impossible conversations’ about the very real damage caused by xenophobic hyperbole, historic revisionism, and conspiracy theorising. That would be genuinely challenging content for some of SN’s audience.
And what’s more it would be possible to deliver such challenges while still condemning the excesses of the social justice left. Indeed, I think the messages could be complimentary, if the problem really is philosophical in nature rather than based on political partisanship.
If I’m wrong and the excesses of right wing ideologues were discussed, or the speakers raised even mild criticism of Sovereign Nations output, then I’m happy to be corrected but based on Pamela’s summary I get why people accuse the Sokal squared folks of being pawns of the right.
