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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
I read the piece (before we recorded and again after). I don’t think this is a practical joke- was merely agreeing that I think many people might reasonably set a different ethical threshold about the appropriateness of faking articles as a method of criticism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
Yes and I have said I hope they'd do so consistently and if they find that undercover sting operations to reveal corruption are OK in some areas and not others, ask themselves if they could have a bias.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
None of which were assessments I made (are you saying that’s been my tactic?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
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.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
But the concern that my points were seen as ad hominem is what made me want to clarify. I even apologized if it came across that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I accept that apology and hope you are a bit more inclined to see us as people with good intentions who care about knowledge and equality issues. I can accept that you think we should have stuck to straightforward criticism but disagree.
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.