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?
-
-
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 @HPluckrose and
One point that would have been nice to hear brought up in relation to this is that the authors do argue against these ideas in ways that don't involve hoaxes rather often. This project is supplementary to that. Meant to address some common responses to that argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and
But I think an ethical position against insincere scholarship intended to be revealed with an argument that there's a problem with knowledge production in that field can be consistently & coherently held whether you consider this hoaxing or not. I'd disagree with it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
And I’m totally fine disagreeing with you on that! (I suspect you are fine too). I just wanted to go on record to clarify what the disagreement is about. (But hey, i also think lots of practical jokes border on unethical). The harder q to answer is whether they’re effective.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
I don't like practical jokes either. If you think this is a practical joke, all I can ask is that you read the Areo piece. If you doubt our own account of what we did and why, at least consider why we'd write so seriously about it for years & then spend a year full time on it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We really aren't joking. Some of our pieces had a comedic element but there's always a serious point. We genuinely think this is undermining the status of knowledge & consistently liberal ethics, contributing to post-truth and the rise of populism.
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.