I'd like to point out a factual error at the beginning of this week's @verybadwizards podcast. The presenters, esp. @tamler, stated that @HPluckrose & @ConceptualJames have never voiced any serious critiques of pomo-influenced fields, only hoaxes. (Thread)
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @IonaItalia @verybadwizards and
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
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
And I genuinely don’t think we were lobbing ad hominem attacks. If I was, I didn’t mean to, and I’m sorry it came across that way. I just was wondering why choose that particular strategy (Paul thought it had some value, and I think it might make things worse).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
So that we could operate inside it and really see how it works.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
Sure, but you don’t really need to write fake articles to do that. But anyway, just wanted to clarify the disagreement and engage a bit. I appreciate the discussion, Helen.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.