I misread this in haste when I responded yesterday. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1054886048625541120 … It is not the empirical & generally reasonable scholars who are responding in deranged & vitriolic ways. Those opposed tend to respond by ignoring our point & referring to a number of extraneous factorshttps://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1054883200525230081 …
-
-
I think, in these cases, the reality is "We'll claim to see the problem with the grievance studies approach if pushed & to differentiate our own work from it but don't really want anything to be done about it due to having internalised some of it & misguided loyalty to colleagues
Show this thread -
I think the reality is that very many people just don't see an evidence-based epistemology and consistent ethics around social justice issues as being that important & are happy not to argue with "other ways of knowing" & "judging ppl by gender, race & sexuality is OK sometimes."
Show this thread -
Charitably, I'd say they perceive this as a daffy but relatively harmless alternative form of scholarship to empirical research & consistent ethics and so should be included as part of the productive diversity of ideas.
Show this thread -
If so, I'd agree it's daffy, disagree that it's harmless, agree that it is an alternative epistemology and ethical system that should be part of the academic conversation but that the productivity of ideological diversity comes from robust argument & criticism not accepting all.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Kind reminder that this has been my response from day one (AFAICT I wasn't the only one).
-
What has?
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.