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..."
-
-
But ultimately an objection to what was essentially an uncontrolled reflexive ethnography without the consent of the field examined to reveal problems in it can be honestly made. Assessments of us as motivated by a wish to pull cheap tricks, hurt ppl or oppose equality cannot.
-
None of which were assessments I made (are you saying that’s been my tactic?)
-
You called it a practical joke and said we were gleefully attacking *people* and it sounded as tho you said we had opposing views on gender equality. If you don't think any of that & accept that we had good motivations, we can disagree on whether this will help or be ethical.
-
I said that I don’t like the delight in deceiving people to make a point.
-
And I think that is uncharitable. We were not delighted to have deceived people. We were delighted to have a paper accepted and amused by the mad comments.
-
Fair enough, you are right that I cannot with any authority say that you took delight in deceiving. That is uncharitable and I apologize.
-
Gladly accepted. I hope we will have more productive conversations in the future.
-
Likewise, Helen. Have a good evening and thanks for the discussion.
- 9 more replies
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.