In your article, 'grievance studies' is a loaded umbrella term that targets everything within a collection of fields, but post-publication, the definition has been retro-actively changed to mean a methodology or an approach prominent in those fields.
-
-
Replying to @KetanJ0 @bernybelvedere and
No, it hasn't. You even screenshotted the section in which we said specifically what approach to identity studies we were criticising and are ignoring the discussion which says this is not the case and asks people not to say that it is.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @bernybelvedere and
Like with everything else associated with your project, I find the public pronouncement to be far more telling indications of intent than the content of the original post, when it comes to figuring out exactly who and what the targets really are.pic.twitter.com/DmgdjloPUT
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KetanJ0 @bernybelvedere and
I have been fully open about my intent. I have criticised these fields for years before doing the project. I am writing a book about the problem. That's why I did the project. Why do you find it suspicious that people who see a problem somewhere then investigate it?
2 replies 0 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
I don't want gender studies defunded. I want it made rigorous. I'd actually like to teach it. I understand why people think it is providing nothing worthwhile right now tho.
3 replies 3 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
Do you react in this way when feminists who have argued a problem to exist somewhere in regards to women's rights then investigate it and test this claim? Would you say 'Your previous statements show your intent to argue that sexism exists. Therefore looking for evidence is bad."
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @bernybelvedere and
It depends how they did it. If they mask the full number of trials, ignore all negative results, perform no statistical analysis, fail to disclose funders, avoid peer review and then describe the work as an 'experiment', then yes.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KetanJ0 @bernybelvedere and
You are being dishonest. We have revealed all the information in our fact sheet and provided all essays and reviews. We didn't need to mention the ones which failed but we did. What statistical analysis do you want & how would it work? How did we avoid peer review?
2 replies 0 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
We cannot reveal our funders or our supporters although many have agreed to have their messages of support screencapped with identifying details removed. They fear being fired and dogpiled as racists, sexists & homophobes for wanting this addressed.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
This is a shame because we tried to address valid criticisms of the last attempt & be very clear about this not being a controlled study, not overstate significance of results & urge people not to do so either. I don't think there is any way to address this that would satisfy you
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
We are all of us honest and sincere people trying to address a very specific problem transparently and with humility. I will now give up on any hope of being read charitably by you.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.