I have yet another person demanding that I listen to them arguing (badly) against things I never said or admit I don't accept criticism. If you want someone to listen to your disagreement or criticism of their ideas, make sure it is among the best being offered them.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s1ider0
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
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s1ider0
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @s1ider0
I'll engage a serious criticism when I hear one. I've been waiting a few weeks. And I don't particularly care what some dude on Twitter or a podcast considers a serious criticism.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
The best criticism so far has been "these papers aren't really hoaxes," to which the correct reply is, "thank you for noticing."
3 replies 5 retweets 28 likes -
The fact is, the acceptance and special recognition of the dog-humping paper is entirely indefensible, and this applies to several other papers as well. Acceptance of others *is* defensible, which proves our point.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose
I agree with the acceptance of the papers not being acceptable. And I also see the problems within institutions which are related to both the grievances and their willingness to accept papers they likely did not completely comprehend or thoroughly read.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Again, you are speaking without having done any research. They did comprehend and read them and provided extensive commentary and direction throughout. Reviewer comments are available. They accepted them because they were perfectly in keeping with existing scholarship.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
Check your Google_Drive, I forked it after the posting. I have read the letters, I was pointing out that their *lack of understanding* was the problem, the papers fit the academic paradigm, which is an additional problem. MIT already showed this years ago with AI created papers.
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.