I don't think the 'results speak fo themselves', and I don't think it unfair for a journalist to talk about political motivations; especially when one of the hoaxers appears to have been buddies with Stefan Molyneaux.
-
-
Replying to @christianjbdev @BeatConfusion
People can always speculate about other's motivations & this very often reveals their own. However, even if we are sectretly Nazis, this would not have caused the awful scholarship we relied on to exist, got our papers accepted or made reviewers direct us as they did
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BeatConfusion
OK, but I still don't think it was improper for the journalist to point out that one of your fellow hoaxers was making videos with Stefan Molyneaux.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev @BeatConfusion
Journalists can point out whatever they want. Other people will have to decide whether the fact that someone who did a thing has previously worked with someone who turned out to be a certifiable loon invalidates or compromises the thing that they did.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'd suggest it doesn't unless it can be shown that the video can have had any impact on, say, feminist epistemology existing and being usable it to justify our papers & make them acceptable & how reviewers directed us.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BeatConfusion
I agree that, strictly speaking, the validity of your argument doesn't depend on anything but the argument itself. But, a journalist will also be interested in motivation and context. And for that, I think it's fair to look at what's in the public record.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I mean, I think if an academic decides to make a video explaining his views and publishes it on youtube, then that's pretty much fair game for a journalist. As long as he doesn't misrepresent the video.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev @BeatConfusion
I'm not sure how this relates to how convincing what we did is tho. The fact that journalists can point out we have done things we have, in fact, is not under dispute. It only relates to what we have done this time if someone wants to use it to argue that we are ill-motivated.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And people are going to think our motivations are bad. There has been much posting of pictures of our previous essay titles to contextualise our positions on Social Justice ideology and claim that we are ideologically opposed to it. We are. They disagree we should be. OK.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BeatConfusion
But, that is OK. People are allowed to have different opinions. And I'm pretty much fine with disagreement, as long as it doesn't involve journalists wilfully misrepresenting anyone's views.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I said "OK." I will continue to argue with them.
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.