Other errors: They said there were 21 papers. They tentatively said all the papers were in Helen's name (this was just bizarre imo). They said "most were rejected" without pointing out the project was ended early due to exposure before revisions. They just didn't read it imo.
-
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @IonaItalia and
I just listened again and
@peez also explicitly claims that they're motivated to vocally disagree with some of the views that people in these fields have and he gives an example of "gender equality" implying that these authors are opposed to gender equality. That was insane.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @IonaItalia and
Dude you are totally missing what I said. At least quote the whole thing or give a time stamp. I said they were motivated by substantive disagreements about issues in these fields (such as how those fields treat the concept of gender equality). Is that up for debate?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @verybadwizards @IonaItalia and
18:34: "They're very motivated to vocally disagree with some of the views that people in these fields have. And those views themselves are substantive. The views about, say, gender equality. They might not be right, but they are views that you could argue about..."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
Both Helen and James have passionately argued for gender equality in a number of places. Your quote here suggested they're opposed to it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
And it'd be one thing if this was just a misstatement since this is basically live, but it's mixed in with a bunch of unfair mind-reading about their supposedly smug, gleeful intentions to hurt people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
It was generally uncharitable, yes, but we expected this. I think you are more upset about it than we are because you didn't expect it of VBW. And also know us and our motivations, obviously.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
I think my disagreement just boils down to whether hoaxing is necessary, or if it is effective to hoax, and whether hoaxing is the form of criticism that I’d want to receive (i wouldn’t, but we talked to James about the value of mockery and we just have different views).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
And we have tried very hard to point out the difference between hoaxes and going deeply into a field for a year and reflecting its ways back at it to learn about it, see how the system worked from within it and test certain propositions. We knew everyone would say 'hoax' tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and
We've given up on overcoming that now. But, in reality, a hoax is when you try to get a field to accept papers it wouldn't really want to accept. If you read our papers, you will see the ideas they present are absolutely legitimate within the fields & draw on existing scholarship
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
We didn't want to show a broken peer-review system. That works fine according to the criteria of the field. We wanted to show what that was from a perspective of up to two years of working inside it. We think it matters because it undermines both scholarship & social justice.
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.