People cannot deny this to be true but they can argue about what it means. Those opposed seem to be mostly saying that 1) our papers are actually good & there is no problem, 2) Whataboutism about how other fields have problems too 3) Character & motivational assassinations.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think there were some people who weren't obviously ill-intentioned or stupid who were failed to be convinced by this study. Some people found it very convincing, Other people were more skeptical. Of course, there were also character-assassins.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev @HPluckrose
Personally, I thought the hoax was very witty, and well done, and I'm predisposed to think most of this critical theory stuff is bollocks anyway. But, I also think that people are going to continue to argue over what if anything it proves.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Yes, but they do seem to be arguing over things outside of what we claimed it showed. People are saying we did not prove this epistemology or ethics to be any kind of a problem and we didn't in that project. That was about showing it to exist. We have argued against it elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
They are saying we did not prove knowledge production to be worse in these fields than anywhere else but this project was not about that either & did not make that claim. We support people addressing other kinds of problems with knowledge production in other fields.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
Other people are claiming we did not show the whole of the humanities or all scholarship around gender, race and sexuality to be terrible and that's good because we don't think they are and said so explicitly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well, I see all this stuff about 'grievance studies'. Are you making the claim that your hoax disproves certain subfields, which could be said to involve grievance of some sort? I'm not clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
We are arguing that scholarship which draws on the postmodern premise that knowledge is socially constructed in the service of power & perpetuated via language - radical skepticism and cultural constructivism - exists in identity studies & produces irrational & unethical results.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
We called this 'grievance studies' because it focuses on these systems of power from a Social Justice perspective which seeks to interpret all sorts of things as evidence of these oppressive power structures. We did particularly well finding evidence of problematic masculinity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
OK, I'm going to take a break from this conversation, cos it's going on so long, and debating anything on Twitter is *hard*. But, I hope there aren't any bad feelings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, I will gladly leave it here. No bad feelings. There have been resigned and sad ones where you are concerned for some time. I no longer have any wish to try to remedy them tho. You are who you are and I accept that.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.