How so? He links directly to the tweets being discussed.
What facts are incorrect?
regarding the misinformation in John Teasdale's tweets:
"hey, let me first give you the full, completely objective context" then how come i was able to tell what your stance was from the 3rd tweet on?
"Deroir, took the opportunity to contradict her and say "It's actually not that hard, just do this.""
Really? he said "its actually not that hard" huh? Thats not what he said at all.
at. all.
"It's actually not that hard, just do this." seems like such a slanted mischaracterization of Deroir's tweet, paraphrased to make it sound more condescending as proof that it was condescending.
It's been linked a few times. If we want to evaluate things in this way, by recontextualizing someone's words, unfairly paraphrasing and summarizing, assuming negative motives and such, then fine I guess. But to then not do the same to Price's comments reveals such a spectacular bad faith argumentation that it's difficult to take seriously.
I read the whole thing. He's falling into the same hypocritical trap of many by agreeing with Price's assertion that she's "off the clock" when literally no one else fired for social media nonsense (sometimes not even with their place of employment right next to their name) is afforded the same level of generosity. He's also making a lot of assumptions about Derior's intent when the stream just a day prior contradicts it.
So yeah, read the whole thing with an open mind and will now have no problem disagreeing with it.