This is what @ConceptualJames and I argued here:https://areomagazine.com/2018/04/07/freedom-of-speech-and-the-fallacy-of-demanding-to-be-heard/ …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This simply allows you an easy out. Seems most "offers" your cohort accepts are from those most unskilled and easy to combat, which amounts to hiding in your heavily-bleached tower. Similar to being a pro-boxer who only fights punching-bags.
-
That is not what I am arguing for. We argue for the opposite. See below I'm not going to engage "You're just racist & sexist" when I could be addressing serious & thoughtful criticisms. Areo just published one criticising James & my argument against identity politics.pic.twitter.com/vRzxl4skz2
-
I just read the article. I am not suggesting that you are *wrong* for not engaging in certain conversations. What I am suggesting is that you are doing the equivalent of "putting the rap artist on TV to discuss Racism versus a professor of ethnology", or the like.
-
But why are you suggesting this when we have explicitly said the opposite? We'll engage with serious criticisms and not silly ones. We invited the whole gender studies department to the last talk we all did together.
-
It's just not a fair accusation. We're trying to get these conversations going and get academics in the top of these fields to talk to us. Usually they won't but when we get anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a serious argument, we'll engage with them.
-
I will give you the point that I am over generalizing, as you have all certainly engaged with people in the field. Though nearly all "White folks", whereas, there is a wealth of Black academics who speak on the topic. Either they have not responded, or you have not offered.
-
You're making this up as you go along, aren't you? First it was that we ignore good criticisms & highlight the bad. Now it's that we go by race. On the occasion we had a talk about intersectionality, we invited anyone who worked in it. No-one came. Now, anyone can say anything
-
No. The point is two fold. You're selective in who you are engaging with "officially", initially I was speaking about Twitter, as that seemed to be what you were addressing. Conceding that you have spoken with academics, but "what" academics is a legitimate additional question.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I saw it. But I was getting told off for amplifying these people again and that wasn't entirely unjustified so I muted him and muted threads.
-
Yeah I usually don’t bother engaging with people who behave like that, but his nastiness caught me at just the right angle and I had to say something. Lol. I should be good for another month or two.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
You're a public person now,
@HPluckrose , which means you're officially responsible for that bank of strawman arguments being hastily assembled in the queue.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sometimes I just shoot for "most disdainful".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Assuming they’re judicious and levelheaded when determining what’s “best” of course
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Okay. But tomorrow nobody is going to argue. I mean it. Nobody. Anyway. Or else.
Thanks. 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.