OK. I'll leave you to talk about character, motivation and association of authors rather than their ideas but I am disappointed. We do bash feminism tho. Yes. That's an actual stated position to engage with that doesn't require mindreading or guilt by association.
-
-
And this happens repeatedly. I raise the results of the project & people say "well we know some papers can be really bad but what about the time one of you talked to Rubin and Molyneux or when Peterson retweeted you and they're all connected to Sam Harris who spoke to Murray?
-
I'm sure some people do make unjustified guilt by association dismissals of your entire project. That isn't what I am doing. I have not dismissed the project, nor have I dismissed you on the basis of your co-authors actions.
-
OK but I'm not going to sit around waiting for you to stop talking about Rubin, Peterson & Harris as the context in which it shld be read even tho I ignore Rubin, find Peterson the biggest barrier to addressing the problem, admire Harris & none of them had anything to do with it
-
Grand. I don't recall stating they had anything to do with the project. I also didn't say Molyneux did. I'm also not forcing you to go back and forth here. I'm mainly responding to you. Happy to agree to disagree.
-
Well, they were part of what you called "a more in depth examination of the pros and cons and surrounding context of your efforts." I wouldn't judge your work in the context of a lot of what is coming out of cultural anthropology tho.
-
You'll notice I'm engaging with you and what you say and not the worst examples of anthropology or anyone you might once have been in conference with who has said something certifiably insane.
-
Ok, last response for me... 1. Cognitive not Cultural anthropology, important difference. 2. You shouldn't judge me on who I attended a conference with (no control), 3. You should factor in who I associate with & what I often talk about; especially if I am pally with ideologues.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's convenient. So are you saying it is ok for you to read between the lines of what I explicitly said?
-
That doesn't make any sense. I am addressing what you did not asserting that you said you were going to do it. Please go away now if you won't have an honest discussion.
-
I can say that someone disregarded one thing and spoke about something else at length even if they don't say "I'm going to disregard this thing and talk about something else at length" Good grief.
-
I actually completely agree with that but I think that what you just found frustratingly obvious is exactly the same way I feel about your transparent efforts to self servingly frame this discussion in a manner that makes you the only honest participant.
-
I think you're honest! I'm sure you genuinely think that what's important to discuss is a load of other people you associate with criticisms of SocJus scholarship and activism as context rather than what we did & why. I find this flawed for the reasons I gave & I want out.
-
In this particular thread yes because that's what I was discussing. If I was discussing the merits of your hoax and problems of certain fields that would be a different discussion. But I also want out. So let's leave it at that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.